HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/06/08 (7)
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 1
3.
PUBUC HEARING:
Consideration of the followin2 aoolications fIled bv Charles
Tibbitt for 0,67 unincOJ:porated acres located at the
southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lvnwood Drive.
a. GPA-94-02. Amend the General Plan From Office
Professional Commercial and Residential to
Commercial Visitor,
b, PCZ-94-B. Prezone to C-V-P. Commercial Visitor
Precise Plan,
c, PCC-94-23. Conditional Use Permit to ooerate a
full service carwash,
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant, Charles Tibbitt, has submitted applications for an amendment to the
General Plan, a Prezoning and a Conditional Use Permit for 0,67 unincorporated acres
at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, The proposal is to
redesignate the site from Office Professional Commercial to Commercial Visitor, prezone
the parcel to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor with Precise Plan, and establish a full service
carwash,
The Precise Plan for the proposed carwash received conditional approval by the Design
Review Committee on February 28, 1994,
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-94-04, of
possible environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial
Study and comments thereon, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that
there would be no significant environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption
of the Negative Declaration issued on 18-94-04.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the initial Study and the Negative Declaration fmd that this project will
have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-94-04,
2, Adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council take the
following actions with regard to the 0,67 acres in question,
3 -(
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 2
a, Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution amending the land use
designation of the General Plan from Office Commercial To Visitor Commercial.
b, Adopt the attached Draft City Council Ordinance Prezoning the property to
C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan, in accordance with Exhibit A, attached
hereto;
c. Adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Pennit for a full service carwash,
c. DISCUSSION
The 0,67 acre site is irregular in shape and is located at the southwest comer of Bonita
Road and Lynwood Drive within the unincorporated area of San Diego County, The site
is also located within the Sweetwater Community Planning Area,
1,.~~
The property, which is the consolidation of the existing 0,26 acre frontage parcel with
C:::- ~cres from the southerly adjacent residential lot, is presently vacant and relatively
~ level, except for the southerly 30-40 ft which contains a 40 ft, high slope that separates
the site from a single family dwelling located adjacent to the south, Adjacent land uses
include commercial retail to the north (across Bonita Rd,) commercial office and retail
to the east (across Lynwood Drive), residential to the south and 1-805 to the west across
a flood control channel.
The present Sweetwater Community Plan Designations (County General Plan) are
as follows:
Site
Office Professional Commercial
Residential Low Density (2 dulac)
Neighborhood Commercial
Residential Low Density (2.0 dulac)
Public, Semi Public
Impact Sensitive Area
East (across Lynwood Dr,)
South
West
North (across Bonita Rd,)
(see Exhibit D)
3 - ~
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 3
The present City General Plan designations are as follows:
Site
Office Professional Commercial
Residential (2 dul ac)
Retail Commercial
Residential (2 dul ac)
Residential (2 du/ac)
Open Space
North (across Bonita Rd,)
South
East(across Lynwood Dr.)
West
(see Exhibit B)
The present zoning (City and County) is as follows:
Site
C-30, Professional Office (County)
R-R-l, Rural Residential (County)
C-C, Central Commercial (City)
R-R-l, Rural Residential (1 du/ac) County
C-32,Convenience Comml,(County)
Open Space (County)
North(across Bonita Rd,)
South
East (across Lynwood Dr)
West
(see Exhibit C)
C. PUBLIC INPUT
On February 10, 1994, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize
the residents of the immediate vicinity and the Sweetwater Community Group with the
applicant's request, the planning process and public hearing schedule,
The issues raised at the public forum primarily concerned the additional traffic and signal
delays at the Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive Intersection, The residents pointed out that
the County had recently approved a church/school in their neighborhood, and since the
Lynwood area is served solely by Lynwood Drive, the proposed project would further
contribute to the deterioration of traffic conditions on Bonita Rd, and the traffic signal
phasing (delays) at the intersection,
In regard to the proposed land use issue (full service carwash) and the project design, the
residents in attendance stated that the project was attractive and offered a service
presently unavailable in the immediate vicinity (the nearest full service carwash is located
at the northeast corner of Broadway and "K" Street),
.
There were no representatives of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group at the
public forum, but in a letter received by the Planning Department the Group voiced the
same concern as residents regarding an increase in traffic along Bonita Road, and delay
1-3
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 4
in the traffic signal phasing at the Bonita Road Lynwood Dr,/Plaza Bonita Rd,
intersection,
D, ANALYSIS
In 1989, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Chula Vista General
Plan and, by reference, adopted the Sweetwater Community Plan for all the
unincorporated parcels within this Planning area,
The Sweetwater Community Plan, which encompasses that unincorporated portion of the
San Diego County south of Route 54, east of I-80S, and north of the existing City
boundaries ((see Exhibit E), was adopted in 1977 and amended in 1988, The Community
Plan shows an Office Professional Commercial designation for the site and contains
design guidelines to guide the development of the area and maintain the community
character and gateway qualities,
The existing commercial uses along both sides of Bonita Road are for, the most part,
specialty retail shops and commercial offices, The architecture and site arrangement of
the existing commercial developments are diverse and do not fonn a cohesive urban
pattern,
In regard to the issue of compatibility, the land use designations found in the "gateway"
area surrounding the Bonita Road and I-80S interchange range from Office Professional
Commercial to General Commercial, and Central Commercial (see Exhibit B and C),
The land use designations on this segment of Bonita Road are diverse and allow for a
variety of businesses, However, commercial uses are primarily commercial offices and
retail shops, Therefore, redesignating the subject site from Office Professional
Commercial to Commercial Visitor appears to fit the already established land use pattern
in this area and is consistent with the commercial goals of the Sweetwater Community
Plan,
The redesignation of 0.42 acres of the southerly adjacent residential property from
Residential Low Density (2 dulac) to Commercial Visitor will result in a more suitable
parcel for commercial development and will allow access to and from Lynwood Drive,
The lot split will not affect the livability or the amenities of the property in question
It is important to mention that recently the City rezoned 2.23 acres of property located
at the northwest comer of Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita Road from C- V, Commercial
Visitor to C-C, Central Commercial to avoid automobile oriented uses such as service
stations, drive-thru restaurants, carwashes and other automobile oriented uses, While this
3 ,1
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 5
contradicts the staff's recommendation for this project, the issues and constraints in the
case of the northerly parcel are substantially different. But the principal factor that led
the City to restrict automobile related uses for this parcel was the traffic conditions along
Plaza Bonita Road, the relatively closeness of the freeway on-ramp to the site and street
intersection, and the visibility that this parcel has from almost all angles,
On the south side of Bonita Road, the traffic pattern and traffic conditions are different
primarily because Lynwood Drive does not have the traffic volume that Plaza Bonita
Road has, and the freeway off-ramp does not restrict access to and from Bonita Road,
Based on this and the infonnation and conclusions of the traffic report, the City Traffic
Engineer concluded that the carwash can operate on the subject site without the frictions
that the northerly parcel would have with a similar use,
A noise study was also conducted to determine the potential impact from traffic as well
as from operational aspects of the proposed land use. The study concluded that the
project will increase the existing noise levels by.2db which in the context of the existing
66 db noise level in the area is considered negligible, Nevertheless, the proposed carwash
facility will be conditioned to ensure that the outdoor operation do not exceed acceptable
noise levels,
The existing land uses in this segment of Bonita Road do not generate high traffic activity
at the Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive/Plaza Bonita Road intersection is high and has
been the concern of both the residents of the area and the Sweetwater Community Group,
To address the issue of traffic and signal delays raised by the residents of the area at the
public forum and those raised by the Sweetwater Community Group, a traffic report was
prepared, The traffic report includes the traffic generated by the recently approved and
presently under construction church/school facility and the data provided by the San
Diego County Traffic Division The Traffic report reveals that a good portion of the
traffic at this intersection is generated by the Plaza Bonita Shopping Center located about
1/2 mile north of the subject site, by the Freeway interchange and Bonita Road which is
the main avenue to the Bonita community.
Based on the above mentioned traffic report, the City Traffic Engineer has concluded that
the traffic generated by the carwash, although substantially higher than office or even
retail shops, is spread fairly evenly over the day and, as illustrated in the table below,
is not expected to create any significant changes to Bonita Road and Lynwoodl plaza
Bonita road intersection and traffic signal delays,
3,5
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 6
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE
BONITA RD.lPLAZA BONITA /LYNWOOD INTERSECTION
CONDITION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay(sec) LOS Delay(sec) LOS
Existing 24,0 C 26,6 D
Existing + Project 24,1 C 28,6 D
LOS = Level of Service
(sec)= in seconds
The following table also illustrates the traffic generated by three different land uses; an
Office, a retail building and the proposed carwash,
Land Use Rate Intensity Daily trips Peak Hr
Trips/l000 Trips
sq, ft,
Carwash 9OO/site 250 car/day 900 41
Office Dev* 20 12,000 sq,ft 240 31
Retail Dev** 40 10,000 sq,ft 400 36
The figures show that the traffic generated by the carwash is substantially more than with
office development or retail use, However as indicated in the traffic report the trips
generated by the carwash will be spread evenly throughout the day and will not impact
the traffic peak hour nor the present level of service (LOS) or signal phasing (delays),
The project will be conditioned to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet
requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) to meet city street
design standards,
Regarding the need for a carwash in the vicinity, the nearest full service carwash is
located about 1-112 miles away from the subject site, Thus, the proposed carwash will
provide a convenient service an reduce automobile trips to central Chula Vista,
3-(,
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 7
To ensure compatibility with area and conformance with the established community
character, staff has recommended the following Precise Plan Standards, which we believe
would ensure compatibility even if other use occupy the site:
1. Development in this property shall be in conformance with the Sweetwater
Community and Design Guidelines.
2. Development in this property shall be limited to a single tenant.
3, Building setbacks shall be as follows:
Bonita Road
Lynwood Drive
Rear (south)
Side (west)
20 ft,
20 ft,
25 ft,
Oft,
4, Building height shall be limited to 2 1/2 stories or 45 ft, whichever is less,
5. A 20 ft, landscape buffer shall be provided along both street frontages,
6, All Parking shall be screened from view from the public right of way with dense
landscaping, landscape mounding, low walls or a combination of any of the
above,
7, Driveway along Lynwood Drive Shall be 28 ft wide,
8, Business identification signs shall be limited to low profile monument type signs,
wall mounted signs and directional signs as permitted in the underlying zone.
9. A lighting plan addressing security and light spills onto the southerly adjacent
residential area shall be submitted as part of the building permit submittal
package,
10 Land uses in this site shall not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and
55db by night,
11. Development of this property must agree to not increase water consumption or
participate in water conservation or fee offset program the City may have in
effect at the time of building permit issuance,
1-7
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 11, 1994
Page 8
E, CONCLUSION
The redesignation from Commercial Office and Residential Low Density, follows the
pattern of other parcels along this segment of Bonita Road and is consistent with City
Zoning at other freeway intersections, The full service carwash, as conditioned, will
provide a convenient service for area residents and because the site improvements are in
substantial compliance with the Sweetwater Community Design Guidelines the project
will result in a positive contribution to the overall community,
The Conditional Use Pennit will be condition to restrict outdoor hours of operation to
further ensure that potential noise impacts will not adversely affect the southerly adjacent
residential neighborhood,
The topographical separation (approximately 40 ft,) between the proposed commercial
site and the residential neighborhood above, the safeguards established in the fonn of
Precise Standards to address compatibility and potential impacts, and the assessment of
the City Traffic Engineer that the project will not adversely impact the existing traffic
conditions at the Bonita Rd, and Lynwood Dr.lPlaza Bonita Road intersection, leads staff
to recommend approval of the requests in accordance with the fmdings and subject to the
requirements and conditions contained in the attached resolutions and ordinance,
(f: \home\planning\luis\gpa-9402 . rpt)
~-I'
EXHIBITS
~..,
\//
/
/
/
/
/
-
-
-
.....;'
.....
.....
.....
/
... I
-
- ~
--J
..., \
EXHIBIT "A'"
SCALE,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
BY THE CllY COUNOL ON
CASE NUMBER,
ACREAGE:
DATE'
aT\' QfIUC
!>>on
CHECKED BY:
C)
NORTH
ZONING MAP -
3-/"
~I~
..
<><<'fA ~
DRAWN BY:
T
!
U1
[,
J
:[9)'
t
t
>
.
!J@@@[1i)@]
LAND USE
IlESlDENTIAl
D low
c::=J
I':::::j
k;,/i-j
....~,J
COMMERCIAL
IT::::
~i:'l
t~/1
~
~
du/ac
0-3
Low- 3-6
Medium
Medium ..."
Medium- II-I'
High
High 1'-27
Fletail
Ttwoughtare
VI.lto,
Prot...lonal &
Adminiltrative
INDUSTRIAL
ReHlrch I Limited
Manufacturing
~
~
liS
&linera'
PU8UC 8 OPEN SPACE
J:-: : :~ Public & Quaai Pubtic
o Parkl & Recr.ation
o Water
CJ (Ipan Space
_CI4l PL4N .\REA
~ Ia.tern Urbln
~ Center
" ,'.' "'t'
. '. .
:::>>:>:
EXHIBIT
"B"
r CBULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(!) APPLICANT: Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
GP A _ ......d ,.... aftIce A ....1dMd:I.aI to
ADDRESS: SW comer of BoDIta BeL ....-.....Pdal
aad 1.,-11..00II Dr. PCZ.Pra8De tD CVP. C"ftlllwwrdal Vldtor
SCALE: FJJ# ~f~: PCC.. CQlldltlnaat U. Permit to ODerate ·
NORTH A- ,z..94-B faD IIrva d....uh.
PCC-94-13
~ - ~ I
'\ ....'
........
....
""
""
.......
./
,;'
./
./
./
~~^Th!2-
~~
~
~
- \
-
-
, --
....
I
-__ I
-~
...,
~
\
EXHIBIT "C"
CHULA VI ST A PLANNING DEPARTMENT
C) APPLICANT, Charles Tibbit PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CPA _ A.~Bd from aII'Ice .. ...Weatlal to
ADDRESS: SW comor of BoDlta Rd. .....merclal
and L),....ood Dr. PCZ.Prezoae to CVP. C....meftl.al Visitor
SCALE: Fb'#. NUMfERl' PeC _ CDDdItioIDaI Ute Permit to ~~te ·
NORTH 1" - 200' A-94-0 . P z..94-B faD _rva e&....uh.
PCC-94-23
'3-I:l
~
~ ! ~
z - I I i
a: z ~
w ::> ~ I~
....<(:iEz ~: I~ ~ !~
Cl)w:iE5 Q i~ i~ !Ii I
Wa:O ffi .
I!!" ii
~<(oa.. ~ II!!~ Iii~ II!!~ IiiQ ~ ~ I ~~
... - z_
..; ..; .,;
..; - ~ ..;
- po: ~ ~
- -
-..-..\.t.ot
w
:I:-'
.......
~~
i
z
0
- Q
I-
<
0
0
...J ~
I- """"
0 =
U.I
~ ~
0 ~
a:
~
~n
<(
w
a::
<(
z
<(
-I
c..
~
z
::>
:E
:E
o
(,)
a::
w
~
~
w
~
en
w
i=~
Ir~
ii
~
E-4
~
=
~
;
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIONS
3 -IS
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-02 I PCZ-94-B
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TIlAT TIlE CITY
COUNCIL AMEND TIlE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONE
0,67 ACRES LOCATED AT TIlE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BONITA ROAD AND LYNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN TIlE
UNINCORPORATED AREA FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO
COMMERCIAL VISITOR AND PREZONE C-V-P,
COMMERCIAL VISITOR PRECISE PLAN,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan amendment and Prezoning
were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 1, 1993, by Charles
Tibbett; and
WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan designation on
approximately 0,67 acres located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive
within the unincorporated area of San Diego County be changed from Residential Low Density
(0-3 du/ac) to Commercial Visitor and that the parcel be prezoned C-V, Commercial Visitor;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
General Plan Amendment and Prezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with
its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and
its mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least
21 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 11,
1994, at 7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, The General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than three
(3) times this calendar year; and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the
Negative Declaration IS-94-04; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04.
NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TIlAT TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan and prezone 0,67 acres
3 -I'
located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive in accordance with the
attached City Council resolution and Ordinance,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
applicant and the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CAllFORNIA, this 11th day of May, 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Thomas A, Martin, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(f: \home\planning\luis \gpa-9402. per)
3 -1'1
RESOLUTION NO, PCC-94-23
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was f1led with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on November 1, 1994 by Charles Tibben, and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to operate a full service carwash at
the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
conditional use pennit application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days
prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m"
May 11, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
fmds as follows:
1, The nearest full service carwash is located about 1/2 mile from the subject site
in the central part of Chula Vista, Thus, approval of this project wilI provide a
desirable service in the area and reduce the trips to central Chula Vista to obtain
this service,
2, The topographical difference between the subject site and the residential
neighborhood above (approximately 40 ft) will provide a natural separation that
added to the proposed site improvements will result in a positive contribution to
the overall community,
3. The project will be required to comply with all applicable conditions, City codes,
and regulations prior to issuance of construction pennits and on a continuing basis
thereafter,
4. The proposal is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan upon the issuance
of this conditional use pennit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby grants
the conditional use pennit contingent upon approval of GPA-94-02 and PCZ-94-B, and subject
to the following conditions:
3-/8'
Resolution No, PCC-94-23
Page 2
a, Approval of this Conditional Use permit shall be contingent upon approval of
GPA-94-02 and PCZ-94-B,
b, The outdoor hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00am and
10:00pm Monday through Friday and 8:00am to 10:00pm Saturday and Sunday
c, Driveway along Lynwood Drive Shall be 28 ft wide,
d, Permitted land uses shall not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and 55db
by night.
e. Implement the project as described in the application and as approved by the
Design Review Committee (DRC-94-16),
f. Comply and remain in compliance with the conditions imposed by the Design
Review Committee (DRC-94-15),
g, This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance
written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto, However, the City, in exercising this
reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive
Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover,
h, This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section
19,14,260 of the Municipal Code, Failure to comply with any condition of
approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional
conditions or revocation,
Code Requirements
i. Comply with all the requirements of the City Engineering Department Including
but not limited to the following items:
Construct one half of raised concrete median within ONE WAY sign on
telestar post base and sleeve or apply for a waiver,
Install a 250 watt HPSV street light on the south side of Bonita Road,
Specific location and to be determined by the City Traffic Engineer,
Dedication of right of way as follows:
Bonita Rd, provide 54 ft from center line
Lynwood Drive provide 28 ft, from center line
3-''/
Resolution No, PCC-94-23
Page 3
Replace asphalt benn with curb and gutter and sidewalk at 43' from
existing centerline,
Provide an 8 ft, sidewalk within a 10 ft, parkway,
R-99 Handicap parking only signs shall be installed on all handicap
parking spaces,
Obtain a grading pennit if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance are not met,
Sewer, traffic signal and development fees
All on-site utilities shall be underground
j, Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Building and Housing
Department to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
k, Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
This conditional use pennit shall become void and ineffective if the same is not utilized
within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19,14,260 of the
Municipal Code, Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this pennit to
be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of May 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Thomas A. Martin, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
(f: \home\planning\luis\pcc-9423 .per)
~ -el~
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE
'3-~1
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONE 0,67 ACRES
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND
L YNWOOD DRIVE WITIllN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA FROM
OFACE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO
COMMERCIAL VISITOR AND PREZONE C- V -P, COMMERCIAL
VISITOR PRECISE PLAN,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a General Plan amendment and prezoning
were f1Ied with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on November 1, 1993, by Charles
Tibbett; and
WHEREAS, said application requested that the General Plan designation on
approximately 0,67 acres located at the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive
within the unincorporated area of San Diego County be changed from Office Commercial and
Residential Low Density to Commercial Visitor prezoned C-V, Commercial Visitor; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan
Amendment and Prezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised; namely, June 7,
1994 at 4:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element has not been amended more than three
(3) times this calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends adoption of the
Negative Declaration IS-94-04; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-Q4,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the City
Council, the Council fmds that this project would have no significant environmental impacts and
adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-Q4,
3. ~ ~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves the amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan designating the property "Commercial Visitor."
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A, Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M, Boogaard
City Attorney
(f: \home\planning\luis \G P A94-02. ccr)
3.;;'3
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABUSHED BY SECTION
19,18,010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE PREZONING
THE 0,67 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF BONITA ROAD AND L YNWOOD DRIVE WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA C-V-P, COMMERCIAL VISITOR
PRECISE PLAN,
WHEREAS, property consisting of approximately 0,67 acres located at the southwest
comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive and diagrammatically presented on the area map
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Prezoning was filed with the Planning
Department of the City of Chula Vista on November I, 1993 by Charles Tibbett; and
WHEREAS, said application requested to prezone 0,67 acre parcel C-V, Commercial
Visitor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
prezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners
within 1000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m,
May 11, 1994 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04; and
WHEREAS, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has
determined that the prezone is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that
public necessity, convenience, and good zoning practice support the prezoning to
C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the project would have no significant
environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-04 and voted -
to recommend that the City Council the prezoning of the parcel to C-V-P, Commercial
Visitor Precise Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby fmd,
determine, and ordain as follows:
3,:J,'f
SECTION I: Based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental Review
Coordinator, the City Council does hereby adopt the Negative declaration issued on IS-94-04.
SECTION II: the City Council finds that the prezoning is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare and
good Zoning practice, support the prezoning to C-V-P, Commercial Visitor Precise Plan zone.
SECTION III: that the parcel located at the southwest corner of Bonita Road and
Lynwood Drive, as shown in the attached Zoning MAp, be prezoned C-V-P, Commercial Visitor
Precise Plan.
SECTION IV: Pursuant to Section 19,56, 041 of the Municipal Code, the City Council
finds that the following circumstances are evident which allows the application of the "p" Precise
Plan Modifying District to the Subject site,
Commercial development is usually located adjacent to high density residential
development/zoning. In this case, the 40 ft elevation difference between the subject site
and the southerly adjacent residential neighborhood provide an adequate transition to
justify the coexistence of this two land uses, However, in order to ensure that
development on this property is compatible with the surroundings and consistent with the
surroundings the following Precise Plan Standards are necessary to allow the City
sufficient control to achieve lhe desire community character,
1. development in this property shall be in conformance with the Sweetwater
Community and Design Guidelines,
2, Development in this property shall be limited to single tenant,
3, Liquor Stores and or sale of alcohol, and night clubs shall be permitted uses by
conditional use permit. '
4. Building setbacks shall be as follows:
Bonita Road 20 ft.
Lynwood Drive 20 ft.
Rear (south) 25 ft.
Side (west) 0 ft.
5. Building height shall be limited to 2 1/2 stories or 45 ft. whichever is less,
6, A 20 ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along both street frontages,
7. All Parking shall be screened from view from the public right of way with dense
landscaping, landscape mounding, low walls or a combination of any of the
above,
3- ..;l.,S
9, Business identification signs shan be limited to low profile monument type signs,
wan mounted signs and directional signs as permitted in the underlying zone,
10, A lighting plan addressing security and light spills onto the southerly adjacent
residential area shan be submitted as part of the building permit submittal
package.
11. Land uses in this site shan not create noise levels exceeding 65db by day and
55db by night.
12, Development of this property must agree to not increase water consumption or
participate in water conservation or fee offset program the City may have in
effect at the time of building permit issuance,
SECTION V: this Ordinance shan take effect and be in fun force the thirtieth day from
its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A, Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M, Boogaard
City Attorney
(f: \home\planning\luis\gpa-9402.ceo)
~ ..~(,
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
~. a 7
-
.
Pi!\1
>- no,
w .;~i
,:: "
_ ~t E-
j ~..~
UI fl!
U Ei~"
: I';i
A. IP t'hc
4 ..'!"
~ u~t
8 .,"
A iLl.
_ r.hl'
o ,'E=
I- .p.~
,:1"
r~,=
.
.
,
;
i .
. 1
r t-7 ~ II
r ~ .
i ~i j
.~ .
J :1: td
ii~ ~~ i~ Ii
tr~ ~ ~I= ~. I
i~. iE I~i !!
,...
r
~ ;
I p~;
. -I"
I.. i~l:
~'i~f~ SII
~ .." "I
""~. "
.lilllWI
iiii iT'd'
~
,p;'\il>- \<01>-0
~p:iJ'-
~~.----.
%
c
4
\
\
,
\
\
,
\
. I
. :
~ .
..
~ b
t
I ~ :~
I
B I~
."
..
/
I
~'
L
C
.
~
~
,~ ~
>
I
-I
1
~
\
,
'--- ---
'g
'Z';
~
~
.
"
.
r
.
.
0 i
G"CI2-05 -W~~ ,. I, !~ . '
I Ii
=:&f~~ I<<aQ1 I
I HSYM HY?~~IN08 . I
I
c
u
i.i~
,<
~
~
-----
~-
;/"
<<
~
.--5
>5.
!
I
I
I
c
~
a
I/:'
I;
.
~ .
.
iii! -G.
o 7-
2 ~I . ;~
g'! ~~s
I al~ I
U
I
r!
~
I
I
I
"
. i~
.U'~
~. '
~~:II
0' ~S~:'
~ ~~~i
gJ..
"~:J:
i~~
"i!~o
~~M
,
.
-
<
~
----.-
3 . 8?L._
'- -
,
.-...-
'\-
\--.
~J
..~~
j> :s
""",,,
-( ',,;
~\c~
'" '"
....-.+--.
'\ ',,-
..J
C.
C'" ~--~
'o...,j~"
,"--'
,.
, ...,...,..
j _1
" i ,4
I \
I
re
z
en
~ ~U
.. ~~
D::i
~~ J
~ ICI: iii
t: ~&
Z-
O!iii
mU iI
-"?
~.
,',
n'
"'-
-
.~
'.
-'
-----
--'--
;;,>
-
'~
,n
<<
,
,
I
1
f-~: .
~:j
"
<<
\..
.-
--
.-
'.'
.'
"
.
/
~, 3 cl
<~.
(" '
,
Ie
:
11\
!Cm
~!tI
D:i
8 J
I!C m
!:: Di
~i
III
~"
'0
OJ
o Q
'3 .~
"
I: II
Ii Ii
~! I !
fY
).
o
,)"/
''j::
, x.;p
"
Io?;".
',,:,,,.<. ;
'~--' . ,
~:~r~,..-. '.
t;\\:....
. r->
-)t, l..-'
O->,D Ir'
o \"
1:::'1{;"':;'
~=
- -''''.~~-'--
"'::-.~~~ '
\'
~
(,
(
~ .
" iJrS
007(-
,(<.
,Q;
'<'.
(',
~%-:<~
. ~,~~:: ;~,.:
'""
\ - .......,
o iJ. 'j~:,
'," \
J?V'G,1 ;
~t " \
':]'{;.:'.
- - ".~i1', ----'., !
"/ i;~-..:',~ :.> ~ ~
.;:; ..'~:
fI <,-,e-
%...1, C
() ,/'
".....
.'"'~ ,
I
-I
01
00\
9-91
" '
~,.
cD
~
CO
,
, i
' .1.-"",
C!.:-:_~ . I
; . ..:._---1
. ---: J
d.,', .100. i ';C,~: '--,'- :-r: -
",-,,-.,-, I ~\
"''''1 \ : I 'j _ \
~f_,,_ :Q1.-,c" i ':;t:::{\ ,/.,,:1'-\
II ) ',...- 0 &'< . '_' .
1(-...., . -+-,r. ,__ \
" i ,'~f,' ie;", \
lei- --7-----'-- -~j'" 18',
: ~ · . n . .{ f" :,.
IU :- J -\.\: 4:f
. . 1, .
...l
-r- I 1JJ
-H ~
! i_~~
)
I
en
~
cr:
<(
u
<:
w
0::
<:
-'
<:
I-
w
CJ i
i
I
---~..-
, r;L, ;Jic~ (I,Q.,
~.~ L)~:.;'t'_ ~
~ --'.-!i,j.,\~,~:,:,~
/"',....;,fr '~'':
'-' ~ '.",-
\'~
3.. g (
~
:I:
1/1
~!!!
III: I
C
ou ~
~IJ
:;;I!i
z_
011
III
[8
J
{)iLc,'
\
/ I' , ) /) I /
L !(Ii: },/6j/
( j'
--'-~' )
'/,' i
, i~ , hv
1,)'...1
\
o-f. '-~
,\' \."
\1'" ,y/
(' \~. r'~ ) \~
,,\ \ ,..;1\'
,\j~' \ ,,\
\1\ " \ " '.J
'" \\\
, \\j
L
v 00.
!
, 0 ~FT
" , 0 t5 LJ
o
" .
z
<(
ex:
o , "
.....,
0'
o
ex:
....
o
o
ex:
w
...J
i=
.J. S ':2..
Q.)
Z
<J::
-.J
CL
0::
o
o
-.J
l.J....
o
Z
C\J
I,'
.
. <<"<<1-005 _~'O'THJ "
. ~:&.~"*' 1I01II~ =: fe .
, , HSVM HVUJ.INOS .
&
'L ~/.:.:
r:;- ~
( ,~~,
" '-fr
oo-iJl. ,"
k,.-:..
_':,.,C i
:: ~
o:cr ~
{j ~,/i..
,'~~ ~ i
0" 8 '
...~' .
( ~~- .
'~ ' "
...:-~ .i:
0......... _(I
'~
> )
.-- ~
-~ 1~7"
~\'I:D.
O*f'-..
O..-??-P!....t. '
i- 3'1 :'~ "...-"
,-,
-,
>0
i
>0
>0
i
<0
i
ImU
~..
Le
'"
on
n
0:1
;!
z_
:i:1
,Ie
It)
jj
;;;(;f;"".
. '""::;Ie;>,
: "" '
=-
1 I ;
~:
Q)
... .
I
J,'
.
ONIa.Olli .. 'n 'vlSlo'. me ,
I =:&.1~ v:I~= f= ~ I .~.I.. I
HSVM IIV:> \f~INOS . '1< '1
(J3S(><)jd I
~"
~
"
..
n
.." I
c
~~
z_
>0 iil
>0 >0
I ! <D Ie
i ~j
t
~~
1
c
i~3f
~
'L~,...::.:
-:~~ ~
, '-f~
o -iJ) "
.
k".,."
-'~...-
'~
~O""
e "'I"
,,~~
0" 8' '
Ya,'cf:
I,(~.
~".i:
0,:0 _ (\
,~;N.
, ,
.- .......
-~ ~<
~.ID.
n..........
." ,
O...,..,~"L.'
.-~ ...
", . '.....
-, '
-"",.".
~~~
~
~
,
I , ,
~;
cD
... .
~
~
~
i
II
,...
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3. as
negative
declaration
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Car Wash
PROJECT LOCATION: 3048 Bonita Road
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 570-220-30
PROJECT APPLICANT: Charles Tibbett, 3907 Massachusetts Avenue, La Mesa CA 91941
CASE NO: IS 94-04
DATE: February 2, 1994
A, Proiect Setting
The project is proposed on a vacant 29,108 square foot (.67 acre) site located at 3048 Bonita
Road (the southwest comer of Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive) in the unincorporated area
of the County of San Diego, The project site has an average graded slope of 5% and a
maximum graded slope of 30%, Two single family dwellings are located south of the site,
Pier I Imports is located to the north across Bonita Road and administrative, office and
professional is adjacent to the east. The Rice Canyon flood control channel is immediately
west of the project site and 1-805 is immediately west of the flood control channel.
B, Proiect Descrintion
The project will involve the construction of a single two-story structure incorporating a
1278 square foot commercial carwash bay, 245 sq, ft, office, 193 sq, ft, mechanical room, ,
231 sq, ft, cashier area, 165 sq, ft, restrooms, and a 200 sq, ft lounge, The fITst-floor will
contain the car detailing area, cashi~r, restrooms, mechanics room and the carwash bay, The
second-floor will have the office, lounge and a roof deck area, The access to the building
will be at the west end of the building, There will be six parking spaces, and an area for
drying and stacking (area where cars enter and exit carwash bay), The proposed carwash
will be open from 8am-6pm and there will be eight employees, five full-time and three part-
time, One hundred twenty five (125) to 250 customers are expected per day, There will be
two deliveries of supplies per month,
The discretionary actions necessary to implement the proposed carwash project will include:
an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, a Prezone, Precise Plan approval, the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit, a Grading Permit and an amendment to the existing sewer service
and annexation agreement for this site (agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Phil
Creaser, George M, Warwick and Kenneth W, Baird, June 19, 1990) or a new agreement, .
The project consists of a proposal to amend the current City of Chula Vista General Plan
land use designation from Residential Low (0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial
Visitor, The site is proposed to be prezoned C-V (Commercial Visitor),
~(f?
--.-
r.....~.... _
~- .....
city of chula vista planning department em Of
environmental review .eclion (HULA VISTA
~-~<.
In the Sweetwater Community Plan, Part XIII of the San Diego County General Plan, the
site is designated Office, Professional and Commercial, The site is zoned C-30 in the County
of San Diego, The applicant is requesting that the City of Chula Vista annex the site and that
the General Plan be amended to designate the site as Commercial Visitor and prezone it as
C- V, in the City of Chula Vista, to accommodate the proposed project.
The physical development of the project relating to the requirement of a grading permit will
involve excavation and fill of 2600 cubic yards of soil that is currently on the project site,
The project is considered to be in the floodplain and as such, the project, if approved will
have to comply with city adopted FEMA standards for building in a floodplain: that the
lowest floor elevation (to include basement) of nonresidential structures be elevated or to a
minimum of one foot above the regulatory flood elevation or that the project be
floodproofed,
The applicant will also be required to pay additional fees to the Spring Valley Sanitation
District pursuant to the City's agreement with the S, V, Sanitation District, for the use of the
District's outfall sewer. The applicant will be required to pay the following fees: public
facilities development impact fees, traffic signal fees, transportation development fees, sewer
capacity fees and fees imposed by the Spring Valley Sanitation District,
The applicant will be required to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet
requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) and to provide street
improvements; curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street lighting, drainage improvements and
A,C, pavement. A right-turn-only sign for the Bonita Road entrance will be a condition of
project approval. The applicant will be required to widen the proposed 24' driveway on
Lynwood Drive to 28 feet. For ease of use, the applicant will also be required to provide
a 20' wide entrance and 20' wide exit on Bonita Road to meet Fire Department standards,
The project will employ eight individuals, generating a negligible impact on public services,
The impact is less than significant. However, the Chula Vista School District and
Sweetwater Union High School District developer fees will be assessed on the project in
accordance with state law that currently provides for a developer fee,
The proposed project site is located in a 100 year flood plain, It is not known what impacts
downstream channel improvements to the Sweetwater River Channel may have on the
floodplain elevation at the site, The existing on-site facilities allows surface flow
northwestward to Rice Canyon Creek, which is immediately west of the proposed project
site, The off-site drainage facility is the Rice Canyon Creek, which discharges to the
Sweetwater River channel. Analysis has indicated that offsite drainage facilities including
the Sweetwater River Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River and the Rice
Canyon Creek are inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects,
Engineering staff state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot
above the floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant.
C, Comuatibility with Plans and Zonin2
The project involves a proposed change of the current City of Chula Vista General Plan
designation of "Office Professional Commercial" (Sweetwater Community Plan) to
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9:tRef. 1021.93,1022.93)
3 -37
Page 2
"Commercial Visitor." The site is proposed to be prezoned "C-V" (Commercial Visitor),
The property is currently located within the County of San Diego unincorporated area and
subject to land use controls established within the Sweetwater Community Plan, In July
1989, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Chula Vista General Plan and
referenced the newly-adopted Sweetwater Community Plan as the basis for land use
designations within the unincorporated portions of the Sweetwater Valley that fall within the
City of Chula Vista General Plan area, This action was taken primarily due to the fact that
the County was in the process of updating the Sweetwater Community Plan during the same
time period that the Council was considering the adoption of the updated General Plan,
Property located to the east, across Lynwood Drive, also in the County, is designated "Office
Professional Commercial", and property located directly south and elevated above the level
of Bonita Road, is designated "Retail Commercial" and zoned "C-C" (Central Commercial),
The Sweetwater Community Plan does not directly address properties oriented to major
freeway access and the City of Chula Vista has, in many cases, designated developable
property at major freeway interchanges and "gateways" to the City as "Commercial Visitor"
in an effort to limit the range of land uses to those oriented to tourism and the travelling
public (e,g" hotels, motels,restaurants, car washes ,etc.) Proposed modifications to the Chula
Vista General Plan for areas located within the Sweetwater Planning Community need to
consider the Sweetwater Community Plan fabric but at the same time land use compatibility
within areas currently located within the City of Chula Vista General Plan, The proposed
General Plan land use designation change to "Commerical Visitor" and prezoning to "C-V"
(Commercial Vistior) is considered a compatible land use at this location,
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Traffic
The project will be conditioned to dedicate a sufficient area fronting Bonita Road to meet
requirements for a four-lane major with dual left turns (54' centerline) to meet city street
design standards,
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections, Intersections west of I-80S are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F"
during the average weekday peak hour, Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are
exempted from this Standard, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard,
The proposed project approximately will increase the ADT (average daily traffic) by 900, per
a traffic analysis submitted by Darnell & Associates, in behalf of the project applicant.
LOS"D" occurs for no more than two hours per day, thus complying with the City's LOS
standards.
The conclusions of the City Traffic Engineer and the above cited traffic consultant are that
the proposed project is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or
Lynwood A venue traffic, The traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly over
the day, This reduces the potential for significant impacts occurring, The intersection of
Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive is controlled by the County of San Diego and the applicant
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93;Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
.3 .33
Page 3
will comply with county standards and requirements. The traffic study recommended that
the proposed 24' driveway on Lynwood to 28' for ease of use,
Bonita Road is currently classified as a four-lane major roadway with bike lane, Sufficient
dedication is needed to meet half-width standards of said designation. Also, the applicant
will be required to widen the street to half-width standards along the project's frontage with
bicycle lanes and provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street lighting drainage and A.C,
pavement. Street improvements of Lynwood Drive will insure the project's compliance to
current County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista standards, This will allow for the
future buildout of Bonita Road as discussed in the General Plan Circulation Element.
Fire
The Fire Department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel. The Fire Department
requires that the applicant provide a 20' wide entrance and a 20' wide exit on Bonita Road
to meet Fire Department standards,
E, Mandatory Findin!!s of Si!!nificance
1. The project has the potential to substantiaUy degrade the quality of the
environment, substantiaUy reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
fISh or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered pIant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The project site is in an urbanized area and has previously been cleared and no
sensitive vegetation exists, The proposed project, the construction of a commercial
carwash with an office, mechanical room and carwash bay, does not have the
potential to degrade or reduce any existing habitat,
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
This project will require an annexation, general plan amendment, a prezone (rezone).
a conditional use permit, a sewer agreement and a grading permit.
Concerns regarding potential environmental impacts raised by staff, community
groups and citizens were the following:
Traffic
A traffic study provided by the applicant stated that the project traffic is not expected
to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive, The
applicant will be required to dedicate a sufficient portion of the site to meet four-lane
half-width requirements. which will allow for future buildout of Bonita Road. As a
result of Engineering's requirement for the roadway dedication, the proposed project
will be consistent with the long-term conditions discussed in the Circulation Element
of the General Plan,
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\J020.93:Ref. 1021.93,1022.93)
~.~r
Page 4
Noise
Noise levels are above current standards for the area at 66 db and the increase
created by the proposed project, ,2db, is negligible, As 2,Odb would be considered
a significant impact, the estimated increase is below a level of significance.
The proposed carwash will be constructed in a developed area, of which a majority
is designated as retail-commercial, The impacts of traffic and noise have been found
to be less than significant, City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed
project and no new facilities will be required, Therefore, the project d oes not have
the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals,
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.
All impacts, both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than
significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new
facilities will be required. The project does not have the potential for individually
limited effects being cumulatively considerable,
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project will not cause any significant impacts and it is in compliance
with threshold standards for fire, police, schools, libraries and other public facilities
as discussed in the threshold section of this document. As discussed, the proposed
project will not significantly impact air quality, noise levels and traffic in the project
area, The project will not cause adverse effects to humans, either directly or
indirectly,
F, Consultation
I, Individuals and Or!!anizations
City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew. Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Ken Lee, Planning
Duane Bazzel, Planning
Ed Batchelder, Planning
Luis Hernandez, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:.Ref. 1021.93,1022.93)
3 ~ '" t!)
Page 5
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Charles Tibbett
2, Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19. Chula Vista Municipal Code
UDdate of Geotechnical Report Bonita Car Wash (Reference: Report of Geotechnical
Investigation, Jaric Office Building, Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive, Bonita,
California, April 19, 1990)
Addendum to 1990 Environmental Site Assessment Report, November 1993
Letter from Hans Giroux & Associates, Environmental consultants, re:
Bonita/Lynwood Car Wash Noise Impact Potential, November 9, 1993,
Sweetwater Community Plan, Part XIII San Diego County General Plan
Traffic Report For Bonita Car Wash, Darnell & Associates, Inc., Transportation
Planning and Traffic Engineering, January 20, 1994,
Revised Traffic Report For Proposed Bonita Car Wash, Darnell and Associates,
Transportation planning and Traffic Engineering, April 21, 1994,
3, Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration, The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista, Further information regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Deparunent, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910,
E~i~~~h~~~'~~RDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev, 5/93)
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9-XRd. 1021.93.1022.93)
1J - 'II
Page 6
APPUCATION CANNOT B. .i.CCEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-112 X 11 FOLDER
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title BONITA CAE. IIJA5H
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
C'_\--\()LA \)I"",A I'A,
,
INITIAL STUDY
For Office Use Only
. f:ase No. IS- 9y...or
bpsL AmnL IU~
Receipt No. /2D7~'Z-
Da1c Rec'd. - -
.AccepCcd by I{t?
.~~:Or:t;;~
. OP No,
lIellIed <'Ii'" No._
City of Chula Vista
Application Fonn
3D48
e:,CN.ITA R...oAD
3.
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
Brief Project Description FuLL ~ER\J,c.E
eA-R.WASt-!
w/l)E.TAIL ~r!;~
.
4. Name of Applicant CHARL6'S TI fb'e:>ETT
Address ~07 MA~ACHOSE T1S AV6. Fax# Phone (",97-74(. r
City LA ME~ State ~ Zip --3J94- !
5. Name of Preparer/Agent j?0 ~,LLA.tlF-
Address ~qo I MASSALI-\. USETT" At;, Fax# Phone G9 7 - /':~'.
City LA M2'5 A State (1,4- Zip 9J%/
Relation to Applicant ~~\oye'"
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Pennits or approvals required.
L General Plan Amendment
..L- Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
~ Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
..L Design Review Application
_ Tentative SuM Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
~ Annexation
..L... Specific Plan
....,:::.. Conditional Use Permit
Vuiance
_ Coaotal Development
Other Permit
-
If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from
to
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
Precise Plan
= Specific Plan
TraffIC Impact Report
::x: Hazardous Waste Assessment
Arch. Elevalioos
= '''''''.cape Plans
_ Tenwive SuM Map
_Improvement Plans
Soils Repon
I Geotechnical Repm
j(. Hydrological Study
_ Biological Study
_ Archaeological Study
Noise Assessment
= OIlIer Agew;y Permit
Other
~ . ,,~
Page 1
wpc~021.A..93 (Rd, 1020.93) (Rd, 1021.93)
B. PROPOSED PROJECf
1.
2.
M
3.
a.
Land Area: square footage ~ or acreage o. ~o5 k.
If land area to be dedicated. state acreage and purpose.
b. Does the project involve the c:onsttUction of new buildings. or will existing structure be
utilized? NEh\ r r\N<t.....,..~( '<:'-11 eN
Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of dcveloprnent:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Muhi Family
Townhouse Condominium
Total number of suuctures
Maximum height of structures
Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
" 4 bedroom
"
'",- Total Units
Gross density (DuI.~otal acres)
Net density (DUltota1'1ICfCS minus any dedication)
"
Estimated project population,
Estimated sale or rental pricc range
Square footage of structure .
"
Percent of lot coverage by buildings or sttUctures
'.
Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
.
Percent of site in road and paved surface
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j,
k,
I.
.
"
Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use ('l"I""fr!Ef? r./A L rAt:< \!A::1
b. Floor area II B!:) Height of structures(s) eo
c. Type of construction used in the structure...:r:t.PE. If Ihr ?-, ~ 'TYPE 1Z'
of1:rc-E: .
Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining ~s
and streets = 10 ~~p ~~. u~ ~ hi\~~t
l&J'-'tfl {\u ~ 4"~ ~t~",+~J,~~ L ~ i ft.
Number of on-site parking spaces provided (p ~ 'bt:l,~i~ g !)rjl;"~ ~.rld" ,
Estimated number of employees per shift ,p, " PH \U:,,,,. ~ p:ltt.J:mte
Number of shifts I Total A
Estimated number _of customers ~ day) and basis of estimate
~~:'\o~ ",n +r",J~':tl" ~\nl,J ~~'Pric..e or-
d.
e.
f.
g.
,,2.. ~
';\U tJ i Lt.
3-+"3'
Pap 2
WPC~011.AJJ3 (Rd, 1021),93) (lot: 102293)
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day .0 (p 2. /flloNi \-1.
.
i. Estimated range ofservicc area and basis of estimate 5 ""':\~ r...o\~..c:...~
b~<-o,..l (')v\. "o~.c...{~ c~~~.::v("'~
j. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings ~\N(l (')1== ('APc..,/
"DR-YI N~ O~ l'.A-I2~
k. Hours of operation _P:> : 00 A~+o (o:?M
1. Type of exterior lighting ~~ \ t=L DE. D ~ .J"{
4. If project is other than residential. commercial or industrial complete this section.
N L a. Type of project
~, :.
b.
Type of facilities provided
c.
d.
Square feet of enclosed strUctures
Height of strucnuc(s) - maximum ~
Ultimate occupancy load of project
Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
Square feet of road and paved smfaces
Additional project characteristics
e.
f.
g.
h.
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APeD)?
~O
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated? YE. S
If yes. complete the following:
a. Excluding ttencbes to be backfilled, bow many cubic yuds of earth will be excavated?
C&O-I-oloo(!.'( ~a~ + I.()Ot!1( ArNSS LYNWOO~
b. . How many cubic yanIs of fill will be placed? ~ lCD:;>t') C. V.
c. How much area (sq. it. or acres) will be graded? . S -4d'P c::.
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut (01
Average depth of cut 2.'
Maximum depth of fill 3'
Average depth of fill 2.'
3,"I~
Pqe3
wpc~021.""93 (Rd, 1021),93) (Rd, 10229.!)
3.
Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning. electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
A\12 (\rn-}t')fTI()"h1'l..(<r) f) Q..\~r~;"''''\ \".\^.\.t,c--,. 'n..... (\A-f'I.J~H_
4.
Indic~ the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or 1ICl'CS)
~A'~ ~n ~p'ilr P tue. lA~rjl/J,.J lInd..wJc,f fIIp'J ~ 5t.>CDO ~.1=".
s.
H "" pro"" will ""'" .. MY 1- ~ ........ "" ...... ... "'" """"
~6~~) ~~n:~::'~:Y1 ;rr~ ~. ~\i;.:: II\~~~ J~~,. l1\opbL
6.
Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? -..No
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? .!It.
--.:1 ~
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements ~ary to implement the project, and their points of
access or cOMection to the project site. bnprovements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. C"rb ~,,~ 111\,1 !"-.;~ "i l?\jb I :1~~ ("~
-b .. '~
~"'("\'I ,?,J ~fT ~~? 1'\ ,
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. GeololZV
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? ...:fJ=-~
(If yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? YE~
(If yes. please attach)
2. HvdrololZV
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? _YES
(H yes. explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO
~ -45
Pqe4
WPC~021.A.93 (Rd, 1021),93) (W. 1022.93)
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or .Jjacent to the site?
YE':>) 'FLOoD [,o'N'TR-CL <!..I-\A),l~L
c. Does runoff from the project site drain diIectly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake. reservoir or bay? - No "F LQ) t::> C-1-\H!.1\'E1
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to .Jjacent areas?
l\.tor LlrF-L'T'"
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location.
S;-\-e, Jr""lh~" ~ (1"",,,,+ wI E~~TlN4! A~M S-TQc.lrTtJPt.
'N.IJ. C!.l5~ DF >5/TE.
3. Noise
a.
b.
Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may imDact the project site?
-110 .
Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools. single-
family residences)? -C:leJ
4. BioloEV
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation'! NO
b. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? NO - "PAR.T I ALLY
c. If yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No ~ (Please attach a copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location. height. diameter. and
species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the projecL 'C'lte. h~J
bu.n p.rRv;t'\oAM~ e.\C1::1red, 1--1" Ma.ftlr, d~;bhf:v,
5. Past Use of the Land *,~E.E. ~~\lIRO'N Me:NTrtL ~ ITE' A.~c;.E. 'S~I'>i.sNT,
a. Are there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? N.O
b. Are thete any known paleontological JeSources? _NO
c. Have thete been any hazardous marerials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
.110
d. What was the land previously used for? ~.F, R. .
3...J,lG.
Pop S
WPC~021.A.93 (lid. 1020.93) (Rd, 102233)
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses cmrently existing on the project site.
e..'I..\c,."T'\ "-\(4 t?~b\l""'S 1.\::1\\ ~,~..1 ~.~R. 1=OI.A.hJ~t-ioY\
.
t\\(") c ~u. ('r~ Y""\t- t ).t;....C
b. Describe all structures and land uses CUITCIItly existing on adjacent property.
North .J::::LFI..\ -p\~ 12ph:\
South 'R.cz...$.;d..t.I'\t:,'::1~
East ~OrNV\vr~~-;t'h'1 \
West 'Fl..oC>d. '0\ c\-.~n\'\(>\ . \L1JY. Bo<:>
/
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? ~O If so, how many?
b. Are there any current employment ~ on site? -lJo
If so, how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other infonnanon which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
!\-IE. c..AR. WA~f:I WILL RE.LLAI},1 qSck of:' IJJA.""~P t~<..F1"
IN THE.. h/A';.,fiINe;, OF- (1,4-1<.<'. J2n.J~ a.,4~<" 'PER -HDtAR.. ctr.p
'E.x4=>Ec...TF:\) W!,\\q..\ AvERA~E'<" ArERoy.iM\4A-7':::L'T' 1 (lA-.t?
Fx.1 TIN '=1 EvE'R-Y <\ tvh N UTe: 5
wpc~021.A.93 (lid. 1020.93) (Rd, 1022.93)
3..'1'1
P.., 6
E. CERTIFICATION
I, as owner/owner in escrow*
iliJAR LEe:." 12. '\ I e,~T T
Print name
or
I, consultant or agent*
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
attachments thereto.
r:h/l f,~P
Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature
or
Consultant or Agent Signature
J -2..7- 13
Dale
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
~..1.{8
MC:F,~021.A.93 (W 1020.93) (W 1022.93)
p.... 7
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Name of Applicant CJ.JARLE':::. -,- I P" 12:. F "
AddIas:.3QOi MA'f..c....,AC.HO<"E'TT< AU.
City: L.A /VI 5SA S1BIc lJA
Name of Authorized Representative (n signatory):
AddRss:
City Stale
Apecment Dale:
DeposiI Amount I/"'rf) ----
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of ChuIa Vista. a cI_ ...... mwlicipal c:orporaIion ("City")
and the forenamed applicant for an IniDal Study ("Applicant"), effective as of the Agreemrnt Date set forth above,
is made with n:fc:n:nce to the following facts:
Phone CIIl'! (cQi-7<1rGr
ZAp ClI"\"t\
Phone
Zip
Whereas, !he Applicant has applied to the City f(l' III Initial Study of the type Ifmrd'erenced ("IniDal
Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting the Applicant to develop a parcel
of propcny; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said Initial Study through the various departments
and befme the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and,
Whereas. the pwpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection
wi!h providing the Processing Semccs;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as
follows:
I. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
The Applicant sha1I pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing SeMce n:Jated to
applicant's IniDal Swdy, including all of the City's dUect and overhead costs reJated tha'eto. This duty of
the Applicant shall be n:femd to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay"
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partial performance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay, the Applicant sha1I deposit the amount
Iforereferenced ("Deposit").
I. The City sha1I charge its IawfuJ expenses incurred in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's DeposiL If, after the conclusion of processing the Applicant's
IniDal Study, any poI1ioo of the Deposit mnains, the City IhaII recum said bIIIance to the
Applicant without inlerest thereon, If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study, the IIIIOIIBI of the Deposit becomc;a CKhausted, or is imminently likely to become
exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant sha1I
forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City IbaII c......I..~ as JaSonably
IlK = III Y to continue to provide Processing ScniI:ca. 11Ie duty of the Applicant to
initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein requited IbaII be known as the
"Applicant's Deposit Duty",
n. City's Duty
11Ie City shall, upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Pay or the
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in n:Jation to the Applicant's IniDal
Study application.
3, "f '1
Pqe8
WPC~021."'93 (Rd, 1_93) (Rd, 1022.93)
A. The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure to process the Applicant's
Initial Study application, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estimaIcd by the City.
B. By execution of this agreement, the Applicant shaI1 have no right to direc:t or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shaI1 use its
cIiscretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Services. or the exetWon of the Agreement.
m. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In .&Iition 10 all other rights and remedies which the City shaI1 otherwise have It law or equity,
the City has the right to suspend urdIor withhold the pocessing fA the Initial Study which is the
IUbject mattes' of this Agreement, IS well IS the Initial Study which may be the IUbject matter of
any other Permit which Applicant has before the City,
B. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity,
the City has the right 10 coUect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation to collcct same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests Imvided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed 10
have been Imperly given or served if personally setYed or deposited in the United States mail,
addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at
the addresses identified adjacent to the signatureS fA the parties repRSCnted.
B. Governing Law/Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and constnted in accooIance with the Laws of the State of
Calif<mia. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brottght only in the
federal or state comts located in San Diego County, State of California. and if app1icable, the City
of Chula Vista. or IS close themo as possible. Venue for this agreement, and performance
hereunder, shall be the City of OIuIa Vista.
C. Multiple Signatories
H there are multiple signatories to this agreement 011 beba1f of Applicant, each fA such signatories
shall be jointly and IICvaally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein IICt forth.
D. Signatory Authority
The signatory to this agreement hem3y warrants and n:presents that it is the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly ..thorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement 011
behalf of the Applicant, Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and
Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to.execute this Agreement by
the Applicant.
3- S..
P.,e9
wpc~021.A.93 (Rd, 1020.93) (Rd, 1022.93)
E. Hold Harmless
App1icant shall defend, indemnify and hold bann1ess the City, iIs e1eded IIId appointed offictn
and employees. from and against all c1aims for damages, liability, cost IIId expense (including
without limitation attorneys' fees) lrising out of pnx:eaing App1icant's Initia1 Study, except only
for those claims lrising from the sole negligence or sole wiDfu1 conduct of the City, incurred by
the City, iIs officcn. &gellIS, or employees in defending against such c\aims, whether the same
proceed to judgement or not. Far1her, the App1icant, It ill own ex.peIIIC. 1Iha11, upon written
request by the City. defend any such suit or action brought against the City. ilS officers, agenlS,
or employees. App1icant's indemnifcation of the City IIha11 be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the App1icanL
F. Adminislrltive Claims Requiranents IIId Procedures.
No suit or arbitralion shall be brought arising out of this ....ocI.ieIIt, apinst the City IWess a c1aim
hu first been preaellted in writingllld fi1ed with the City of CIula Villa and IC1ed upon by the
City of Chula Villa in accordance with the procedurea let forth in 0IapIcr 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. as same may from time to time be 1IIIended. the provisions of wbich are
incorporated by the reference as if fu1\y let forth herein, and such policies IIId procedures used by
the City in the implementation of 1IIIIe. Upon request by the City, the App1icant shall meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the pUI]IOSC of resolving any dispute over the tams of this
. Ap'eemenL
Now, therefore. the parties hereto. having read and understood the tams and conditions of this agreement,
do hereby express their consent to the tams hereof by IICtting their hand hereto on the date let forth adjacent thaeto.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chulal!!:l1910
By: I
CL~
Dated: $-2'1'- 73
App1icant (or authorized representative)
By;
By;
Dated:
3-5(
Poae 10
WI'C~02I.A.93 (a./. 1_93) (a./. 1022.93) .
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, paymenlS, or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require disaetionary action on the part of the City Counci\, Planning Canmission, and all OCher official bodies.
The fol1owing information must be disc1~
1. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the contract, i.e.. c:ontraI:lDI'. subcontraclDl'. material
IIIppller.
CHAk?LE~ 1:::. T\~. l...cJIc. Mf8')R~PA} ?AOL D. ....,At;,"J"-r-r.......:
'A .
rIA i2' MIl=:" A MA(~ ).!I'rT'T()
2. If any penon identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or p80 b~. list the names of all
individuals owning more than 1M. of the shares in the COIJIOI'IIIion or owning any panne..ship interest in
the partnenhip. ~ . s-i,
CHAR.LC':-o e, \\fb~ET\ , '1 nl'S MDi?'F,RA''2. 'PAUL 'D ilAAr,..\j,.,rT.,
f1A'162'f\II+="" A MAr.,"'t-J.l'\,-,-1l.215'" ."
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-pofit orpnization or a tnISt, list the names of any
person serving as direclDl' of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust.
'-.- .
4. Have you had more than $150 worth of ~ transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Council wilhin the past twelve months?
- N()
S. Please identify each and every person. including any agenlS. employees. consultanlS or independent
contraclOJS who you bave assignM In ~~t you before the City in this m~.
6. Have you and/or YOID' offlCtn or agenlS, in the aggregate. contributed more than $1.000 to a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ) No N If yes, state which Counci1
member(s):
Pena:tildefJDedu: .Jmy~fum,~.joiDI~UJ . .......lDCiIId1Ib.fnllcn.lorv--~~-r- l;....,.__.1r'Dst.
_. 1j'DdK:oIo. Ibis IDd my ...... _. dIy .... _. dIy. ........,..'''>'. dilClid ......... poIiIicoIlIIIodiviIioD. ....., ...... ...... ...
-...:........ ..... U . .uL"
tpI(YI'E: _ _ ...... .. -')')
eLL! ttu
SignltUre of conlnll:Ull'/app1icant
Dale: <S - &7- 1}
C.HAgLEs Tl~DEIT
Print or type name of conlnll:Ull'/applicant
~'s~
WI'C:F:IIIDMIN'I.ANNIN021.A.93 (Ref. 10211.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Poae 11
APPENDIX III
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I. Current Zonine: on site: C.30 Commercial (County of San Die,!O ZoninlZ)
North: CC
South: R-I
East: CO
West: Onen 80ace
Does the project conform to the current zoning? No. Once the Droiect site is annexed. it will confonn to
the current zonine for the City of Chula Vista.
II. General Plan land use designation on site: Office. Professional Commercial
North: Retail & Service Commercial
South: Sinele.Familv Residential
East: Administrative. Office & Professional
West: Flood Control Channel
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Yes. Once the Droiect is annexed
and a eeneral Dlan amendment is aDDroved. the Droiect is Drezoned. a Drecise Dlan is aDDroved and a
conditional use Dermit is issued. it will conform to the Chula Vista General Plan Use DialUam.
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? .A
flood control channel is located west of the DroDosed Droiect site.
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? Yes. Bonita Road from 1-805 to SR-125 is a scenic
route.
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route).
The orecise Dlan orocess reauires a lanrlsc3De buffer and e:uidelines for the orientation of the buildinli!:.
which will Drotect the scenic auality of the route.
III. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Not applicable
Units Prooosed
Generating
Faclors
Students
Generated From
Proiect
School
Caoacitv
Enrollment
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
.30
.29
.10
IV. Remarks: The oTooosed Droiect will be in confonnance with Chula Vista zorn",! and e:eneral Dlan desi2t1ation
once the site is annexed and a e.eneral Dlan amendment and rezone is 8DDroved.
'7] ifro, ~I (7?" j) ~-<d )
Director f Planning or Represent tive II'
:::/f;...f1 ~, Ie; 9 y
Date
~-S.3
Background
Case No. IS 94-04
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Name of Proponent: Charles Tibbett
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3907 Massachusetts Avenue. La Mesa CA 91941
697-7461
3. Date of Checklist: Januarv 26. 1994
4. Name of Proposal: Bonita Car Wash
5. Initial Study Number: IS 94-04
Environmental Impacts
\.
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures?
.
o
o
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
o
o
.
c.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
o
.
o
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
o
o
.
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils. either on or off the site?
o
o
.
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
o
o
.
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
o
.
o
~~s~
Comments:
The project applicant submitted a Soils Report that was written in 1990. The Engineering
Deparnnent required an updated report. The UDdate of Geotechnical Reoort-Bonita Car Wash was
completed in November 1993 and submitted to the Planning and Engineering Deparnnents for
review. The updated soils report concluded that the recommendations and conclusions of the
original geotechnical investigation are still valid and appropriate for the proposed construction. The
report calls attention to the stockpile of undocumented fill that was noted in the original report in the
northwest comer of the property and west of the drainage swale that slopes down to Bonita Road and
recommends that the fIll be removed and recompacted. Also, the reports notes that there was
evidence on site of a shallow surficial slope failure in the slopes above the existing retaining wall
located along the eastern boundary of the present property. The plans may result in the area of the
failure being removed during planned excavations. If the final plans do not modify this area. this
slope failure will require repairs to restore its original configuration. The project will involve
excavation and fill of 2600 cubic yards of soil that is currently on the project site.
The original geotechnical report did not cover the adjoining easterly property which is now proposed
to be part of the current project. The updated report recommends that a geotechnical investigation
including subsurface exploration be conducted in this area to provide information on the foundation's
support characteristics and the parameters for lateral earth pressure that would be required by the
designer for retaining wall design.
The City Engineering deparnnent will require soils infonnation described above prior to issuance
of a grading pennit.
No unique geologic or physical features exist on site. Cutting and fIlling is involved in the proposed
project and as such the topography will change. As there are no unique geologic or physical features
on the site, this will not be a significant impact.
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
YES MAYBE NO
0 0 .
0 0 .
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c.
Alteration of air movement. moisture. or
temperature. or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
o
o
.
Comments:
The project. if approved. will meet City "LOS" threshold standards and generate an additional 900.
ADT (average daily trips). The roadway currently has a 44,730 ADT. Nine hundred (900) is not
a considerable increase in traffic flow and will not significantly impact the air quality. The applicant
will not be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District(APCD).
,.. S~
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93,1022.93)
Page 2
3. Water. Will the Proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? 0 0 .
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? . 0 0
c. Alterations to the course or flow or
flood waters? 0 . 0
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? 0 0 .
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 .
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? 0 0 .
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 0 0 .
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? 0 0 .
1. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves? 0 0 .
Comments:
The project is considered to be in the floodplain and, as such, the project. if approved, will have to
comply with City-adopted FEMA Standards for building in a floodplain; that the lowest floor
elevation (to include basement) of non-residential structures be elevated to a minimum of one foot
above the regulatory flood elevation or that the project be floodproofed. Site-specific drainage
improvements will be required. The off-site drainage facility of the project site is the Rice Canyon
Creek, which discharges to the Sweetwater River Channel. Analysis has indicated that offsite
drainage facilities including the Sweetwater River Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River
and the Rice Canyon Creek are inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
~-&'"
Page 3
Engineering staff state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot above the
floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees. shrubs, grass, crops. and aquatic
plants)? 0 0 .
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? 0 0 .
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
into an area, or in a barrier to the nonnal
replenishment of existing species? 0 0 .
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed site had been previously cleared and no sensitive vegetation exists. Since vegetation
is non-existent, the proposed project will not significantly impact any sensitive plant species.
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles. fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
o
o
.
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
o
o
.
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
o
o
.
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
o
o
.
Comments:
The site had been previously cleared and as such has no wildlife habitat. Thus the proposed project
site will not significantly impact fish or sensitive species.
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
o
o
.
~'S7
Page 4
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNJNG\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93)
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
o
o
.
Comment:
The existing noise level measured by a Sound Level Meter is 66 db (decibels). This measurement
was taken at 3:40 p.m. on January 14, 1994 at a point near the single family dwelling adjacent to
the proposed project site. The carwash, with the tunnel parallel (per site plan) to Bonita Road, is
expected to generate an additional 0.2 db to the site. An increase in noise is perceivable if there is
a 2.0 db increase. The 0.2 db increase generated by the project is not significant. Thus, after
review of project characteristics, the acoustician has concluded that the proposed project will not
have a potential for a significant impact at the nearest homes and no additional study is warranted.
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
YES MAYBE NO
. 0 0
Comments:
The proposed car wash is already in a well lit, developed area. The project will incorporate
compliance with Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements relating to lights to minimize any impacts
to below a level of significance.
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project site is currently zoned C30 in the County of San Diego and designated office.
professional and commercial in the Sweetwater Community Plan in the County of San Diego. The
applicant intends to apply for annexation to the City of Chula Vista, and apply for a General Plan
Amendment to the designation of Commercial Visitor and prezone to Commercial Visitor. An
approval of the annexation application, a general plan amendment and a rezone, conditional use
permit, sewer agreement and grading permit will allow the project to be in compliance with the
zoning and general plan designation and other requirements of the City of Chula Vista.
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project will not require an increase in the rate of any natural resources. The applicant
has stated that 95 % of water used will be reclaimed, thus placing no demands on the current water
supply for the area. Air conditioning and five electric motors for the carwash will be used. Since
the proposed carwash is a small scale operation and the area is already developed, the energy use
of these devices will not significantly impact the natural resources in the area.
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
.3 ..s 8"
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRcf. 1021.93,1022.93)
Page 5
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
o
o
.
b.
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
o
o
.
Comments :
No highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances will be used or stored within
the project site, preventing a risk of upset on the project site.
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location
distribution, density. or growth rate of the human
population or an area?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed carwash which will employ eight persons people will not cause any increase or
distribution change in the area population.
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed carwash will be employ 8 people on the project site and it is expected that these people
will come from the community. No impact will result on the local infrastructure and no new housing
demands will be created.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? 0 0 .
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? 0 0 .
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? 0 0 .
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? 0 0 .
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? 0 0 .
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 0 0 .
~- 50'
WPC F:\HOME\PLANN'NG\STORED\l020.9~Rer. 1021.93.1022.93) Page 6
g.
A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips
or 200 or more peak -hour vehicle trips).
o
o
.
Comments :
The proposed project will increase the average daily traffic by 900 per the traffic analysis submitted
by Darnell & Associates on behalf of the applicant. LOS "D" occurs for no more than two hours
per day. thus complying with the City's LOS standards. The swdy also stated that the proposed
project is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive
traffic. Traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly over the day. The intersection of
Bonita Road and Lynwood Drive is controlled by the County of San Diego and the applicant will
comply with county standards and requirements for the intersection. The Darnell & Associates swdy
did determine that the Lynwood Drive entrance should be widened from 24' to 28' for ease of use.
The requirement for a right-wm-only sign on Bonita Road will be a condition of project approval.
Bonita Road is currently classified as a four-lane major roadway with bikelanes required for the area
fronting Bonita Road to meet requirements for a four lane major with dual left wms (54' to
centerline). Also, the applicant will be required to widen the street to half-width standards along the
project's frontage with bicycle lanes on Bonita Road and provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways,
street lighting, drainage improvements and A.C. pavement improvements on Bonita Road and
Lynwood Drive. The improvements on Bonita Road will meet City standards and improvements on
Lynwood Drive will meet County of San Diego standards. This will also allow for the fuwre
buildout of Bonita Road as discussed in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
YES MAYBE NO
a. Fire protection? 0 0 .
b. Police protection? 0 0 .
c. Schools? 0 0 .
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 .
e. Libraries? 0 0 .
f. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? 0 0 .
g. Other governmental services? 0 0 .
Comments :
The proposed project will meet City Threshold standards and will not result iri a need for new or
altered governmental services. State law does require the applicant to pay school developer fees
prior to issuance of a building permit. Park and Recreation fees do not apply, since the project is
not residential.
3-~C)
Page 7
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9~Ref. 1021.93,1022.93)
15.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Use of substantial amount of fuel or
energy?
o
o
.
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy. or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project will require electricity for five electrical motors and for air conditioning. The
demand will be less than significant.
16.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
YES MAYBE NO
o 0 .
Comments:
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
A. Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in
75 % of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard
will be met. since the nearest fire station is 2 miles away and would be associated
with a 3 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
The Fire Department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for
the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel. The Fire
Department requires that the applicant provide a 20' wide entrance and a 20' wide
exit on Bonita Road to meet Fire Department standards.
B. Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority
I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
The proposed project will comply with the threshold standards. but the Police
Department identified that they do have an ingress and egress problem. The
requirement for a right-turn-only sign on Bonita should alleviate this concern.
30 - <./
Page 8
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Rcf, 1021.93,1022.93)
C. Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Time surveys in 1992 indicated that Bonita Road in the vicinity of the proposed
project performs at LOS "D" during no more than two hours during the peak period
of the day, which complies with the City's LOS threshold standard.
A site specific analysis completed by a traffic consultant states that the ADT (average
daily traffic) anticipated to be generated by the proposed project is 900. The current
ADT between 1-5 and Plaza Bonita is 44,380 and after the project is 44,730. The
project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or
Lynwood A venue traffic. Traffic generated by the carwash is spread fairly evenly
over the day. This reduces the potential for significant impacts occurring.
The City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the report by Darnell
& Associates. While the Traffic Engineering Division's conclusions are the same as
those of Darnell & Associates (no adverse traffic impacts result from the project), the
consultant's report shows a lower vehicle trip generation rate than was noted in the
City's Initial Study report. The consultant's trip rate value was based on employment
and estimated daily car washes. The Traffic Engineering Division's trip rate value
was based in a generic relationship between land use and land area.
D. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The proposed project is not residential and is not subject to Parks and Recreation
Threshold requirements.
E. Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The proposed project site is located in a 100 year flood plain. The applicant is
required to build one foot above the floodplain. It is not known what impacts
downstream channel improvements to the Sweetwater River Channel may have on the
floodplain elevation at the site. The existing on-site facilities allows surface flow
3-~':a-
Page 9
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
northwestward to Rice Canyon Creek, which is immediately west of the proposed
project site.
Analysis has indicated that offsite drainage facilities including the Sweetwater River
Channel at the confluence of the Sweetwater River and the Rice Canyon Creek are
inadequate to serve projected flows from this and other projects. Engineering staff
state that the requirement for the applicant to build the project one foot above the
floodplain will reduce any potential impacts to a level below significant.
F. Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The existing sewer lines for the site are 18" PVC Rice Canyon trunk line and they
are adequate to serve the proposed project.
The applicant will be required to pay additional fees to the City of Chula Vista
pursuant to the City's agreement with the Spring Valley Sanitation District for the use
of the district's outfall sewer and to amend the existing sewer service and annexation
agreement or to enter into a new agreement.
G. Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants will be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
The proposed project will reclaim a majority of its water and will not jeopardized
water quality in area surrounding the project site.
17.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health?
o
o
.
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
o
o
.
3 -G..3
Page 10
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
Comments:
The noise and air analyses in the initial study found that project impacts will be less than significant
and therefore will not create any health hazards. No other aspects of !he project will impact health.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a.
The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public. or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
o
o
.
b.
The destruction, or modification of a scenic route?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project site is located in a developed area and does not obstruct and scenic views or
modify a scenic route.
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The project site is not residential and does not impact recreational opportunities.
20.
Cultural Resources.
YES MAYBE NO
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? 0 0 .
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object? 0 0 .
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 .
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 0 0 .
e. Is the area identified on the City's
General Plan EIR as an area of high
potential for archeological resources? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed project site is located in a developed area and has previously been cleared. There is
no evidence of any cultural resources on site. ~...(,'I
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93) Page 11
21.
Paleontological Resources. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of paleontological
resources?
YES MAYBE NO
D
D
.
Comments:
The proposed site is in a developed area and there is no evidence of any paleontological resources.
22.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community. reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
animal or eliminate important examples or the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
.
D
D
Comments:
The project site is in an urbanized area and has previously been cleared and no sensitive
vegetation exists. The proposed project, the construction of a commercial carwash with an
office, mechanical room and carwash bay, does not have the potential to degrade or reduce
any existing habitat.
b.
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs in
a relatively brief. definitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
.
D
D
Comments:
This project will require a annexation, a general plan amendment. a prezone(rezone), a
Conditional Use Permit, a Sewer Agreement. and a Grading Permit. Concerns regarding
potential environmental impacts raised by staff, community groups and citizens were the
following:
Traffic
A traffic study provided by the applicant stated that the project traffic is not expected to
create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood Drive. The applicant will be
required to dedicate a sufficient portion of the site to meet four-lane major with dual left turn
lane requirements, which will allow for future buildout of Bonita Road. As a result of the
Engineering Department's requirement for the roadway dedication. the proposed project will
be consistent with the long-term conditions discussed in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan.
3.-~.5
Page 12
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I020.9~Rer. 1021.93,1022.93)
Noise
Noise levels are above current standards for the area at 66 db and the increase created by the
proposed project, .2db, is negligible. As 2.Odb would be considered a significant impact,
the estimated increase is below a level of significance.
The proposed carwash will be constructed in a developed area, of which a majority is
designated as retail-commercial. The impacts of traffic and noise have been found to be less
than significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new
facilities will be required. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-tern environmental goals.
c.
Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact two or
more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
o
o
.
Comments:
All impacts both individual and cumulative have been found to be less than
significant. City facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed project and no new facilities
will be required. The project does not have individual impacts which may be cumulatively
considerable.
d.
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project will not cause any significant impacts and it is in compliance with
threshold standards for fire, police, schools, libraries and other public facilities as discussed
in the threshold section of this document. As discussed, the proposed project will not
significantly impact air quality, noise levels and traffic in the project area. The project will
not cause adverse effects to humans. either directly or indirectly.
:!-,,~
WPC F:\HOME\PLANN1NG\STORED\I020.93:Ref. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 13
Mitigation Measures
(To be completed by the Applicant)
I, as owner lowner in escrow'
Print name
or
I, consultant or agent'
HEREBY AGREE to any mitigation measures required to avoid significant impacts.
Signature
Date
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency. Check one box only.) *95 Choose N, MND or EIR
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
';6 ~h''/ ~f' ~ ~~/ )
Environmen I Revie . Coord tor "
~J.).Jq'l
I '
Date
'If acting for a corporation. include capacity and company name.
~-(..9
WPC F,\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\l020.9~R.f. 1021.93.1022.93)
Page 14
Case No. IS-94-l4
APPENDIX n
DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158)
. It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee
Exemption" shall be prepared for this project.
o It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife. individually or
cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and
Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk.
,--"," -? ./~ ~)
/J ~ J '-C (o..,. /' 1 /) !\u-c-/
Environmental Review oordinator
d/d- /0 '-/
Date .
.30 - ~ i""
Page 15
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93.1022.93)
ROUTING FORM
D~E: September 1, 1993
TO: ..-n Lar~n, Building . Mousing
'~ohn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
JIOger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
~ichard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Irol Gove, Fire Departn.ent
rty Schmidt, Park. . Recreation
rime Prevention, Police Department
rrent Planning
~J.dv" h'vward, Advance Flanning j::c,t0 i..eL
~ob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, A'ate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS' EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
DOUQ Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (IS- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review of Environmental Revi.-,w Record FC-____ERR-____)
The Project consists of: Full service cir wash with detail area, office and
lounge. The project will include prezoning and annexatiol
Location: 3048 Bonita Road (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Drile.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 9/10/93
Comments:
3-"1
DATE:
~rt
zfRO : -,
-f!
SUBJECT:
.
~
~~
ROUTING FORM
F,r!,"-';,' .
-;-_.~ -,'"
C
t:: ' ,~ -
,,-:'" - ~ ., ~
Xen Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
clirr SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIRI2)
Richard Rudolr, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty schmidt, Parks & Recreation
crime Prevention, police Department (H.J. Diosdado)
CUrrent Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning
Bob sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Xate Shurson
SWeetwater Union H.S, District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
6~ /lo :o~
Environmental Section
,.
Application ror Initial Study (Is-jfQtIFA-~DQ03.) )
Checkprint DraH EIR (20 days) (EIR- _IFB- _IDQ )
Review or a Drart EIR (EIR- _IFB- _IDP )
Review or Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_)
The project consists or:
Location:
Please? T2Vi,W the document and rorward to me any cOllUllents you have
by I~ 10 ..!1~
COllUllents:
~.7,J ~.
. g,.:
~/' q1
q.
II'
!>,?c:5
\}\~ '\
ROUTING FORM
D~E: September 1, 1993
-
2'0:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineeri:lg (EIR only)
Cliff S~anson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistart city Attorney
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, police Department
Current Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Lei ter, Planning Dil'ector
Chu 1 a Vis ta El emen tary School~t;:i~t. JCate .shU-1'S-QJ1
(~sw~etwater unionH:'S-;--r>~strIct Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
aureen ,. y (F~nal
other
-u
r-
;r:.
~
(EIR onl~)" .'
c)
'._'J
,..... V_I
:' J
- .
r', _._
,. .
-
/.,}
l..;
FROH:
Doua Reid
____Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study, (15- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 )
Check print Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-____ERR-_)
The Project consists of:
Full service car wash with detail area, office and
lounge. The project will include prezoning and annexat1o.
Location:
304B Bonita Roao (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Drive.
please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 9/10/93
Comments:
,4-1'/bP.... ~ Ar 1M! ~___e-~ ,MrF P""' lIT' ....fV/m ~~ 7C
I~#rt>r 8u;~p~. 7"'4!-'r~.
~~.. ("11'$~
'!...."'),
. '...-
.. -
MEMORANDUM
. DEe 2 9 1993
J ....;u .~. ...'"\ '
.'..'-,:.3
December 16, 1993
File' ZA-OSO
SUBJECT:
f DuaDe Bazzel, p111nnil1g Department "'
Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Directo
City Engineer
William Ullrich. Senior Civil Engin~ ~fJ1
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic Enginee\f<
Request for Zone Change to Construct a Car Wash at 3048 Bonita Road
(PLZ-948)
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal. We do not propose the
inclusion of any conditions of approval for the Zone Change. However, we request that you
provide the applicant with the following list of items which will be required in conjunction with
the Building Permit uner the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code:
1. Public improvements may include, but not limited to, the following:
.. Sidewalk 8 feet in width
b. Half of concrete raised median (may be deferred)
c. Three driveway approaches.
d. Street light
2. A construction permit will be required for any work performed in the sueet right-of.way.
JP:sb
cc: Ken Lee. plllnning Department
(1:IIIOWI!IINCJINI!I!I.\PI!DII1'IIZAD5.JP)
:!>,7(;(
MEMORANDUM
November 2, 1993
File No. YS-577
)
TO:
Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer (AJ1
FROM:
SUBJECT:
IS-94-04 Bonita Car Wash - Sewer Service Agreement Revision
This memorandum is a follow-up to our Initial Study Review dated September 10, 1993 for
the subject project in which we indicated in Section VII that the Sewer Service and Annexation
Agreement dated June 19. 1990 (approved and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15684)
may need to be updated. Upon further review of the agreement, we have determined that an
update will, indeed, be necessary for the following reasons:
1. When the agreement was entered into in 1990, the applicant proposed to construct an
office building on three consolidated parcels. The applicant now proposes to construct
a car wash. Also, it us our understanding that the applicant is in the process of
acquiring additional property in order to satisfy specific Planning Department design
requirements with respect to site layout and building orientation. These represent
substantial changes from the applicant's original proposai in 1990, upon which the
agreement was based.
2. Because the net area (gross area minus dedication) of the current proposal will be
greater than the 1990 proposal, the Transportation Development Impact Fee and Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee, which are both based upon net area, will have to
be recalculated. In addition, these fees have increased since 1990.
3. The Traffic Signal Fee, which is based upon expected trip generation, will have to be
recalculated because the expected trip generation for the currently proposed use is
higher than the expected trip generation for the 1990 proposed use.
KPAlkpa
cc: Barbara Reid. Associate Planner
(F:\HOME'ENGINEERIADVPLAN\YS-S77.001]
a-?3
\
(
RECt::\VED
NQV 1 0 1993
ys -'5'7 ~~~
~~,,~
PLANNiNG
ROUTING FORM
DATE: No~u... 10) 1"t13
f(2otv\ ,!PO :
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
)IT Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
~Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, police Department (M.J. Diosdadc?;
Current Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning :.2
Bob sennett, city Landscape Architect (oJ
Bob Leiter, Planning Director r
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate shur~
SWeetwater Union H,S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
\V:~:
,
~~~
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial study (Is-91--DtFA-6:;~S;DQ 'b3.5)
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-~
The Project consists of: Fvt..L. ~VIC.t= CAlL WAsH W1nt ~1l""""'e',."'IOF'Fla,
AUT? J,..&JV,Jt;E. . '7l-IE. ;>Ili>;Tru::rw{r.,,/- 'AlGl..Vr>/E. ~'Zp.Lj,J(;,
ioN'/? Nl/'ollE1<,&.-nc.J .
Location: 3D '-Ie '&NI~ y,.,..t:> (>WC.OF S't..J,~ t4z.'/? hlb~Yf.J..fAItx1pJ4z~
1<6'VI~D ~l~ ?LAJ.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by lilt tJ I'(?l. .
, ,
Comments: ~N"IIJU(Z..INGo DIIII';'r<<>>-t ~~ -r!1A1A~ 'Pt~..Fct2- THe:.
fZf:v~ ~-n:; f't.H! Wrnl IZ~~~-r 1"t> -nfE ~INaI!J.l(;. DII/,.s,,,,.J
~fbIJ';'~ Folt.. -n+~ ~(&-It-1AL <;;rn;. F"!JW AIlE 1~r7FrEP- BY' ^
C.(~ Af(o<.IJt:> THt: QU~$nC>N1 fTE:M NUMB~R...
3-' ? ~
YS - '577
Case No.:r:S~'f-()lof ~I~
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
I. Drainage
A. Is the project site within a flood plain? YEAr;.
If so. state which FEMA Floodway Frequency Boundary. 100 'IJ:'...", . rr 1<:' ~ /t:..,-.w./ lV~r
(M , C~a..
Y WNt> fio'G;:t &ItoI F~/N el.b'~oa 1o<T" 1T1!!. . .. ?
B. at ~ the locatIOn ana aeS-Ctlpllon of exiStmg on-site age facilities. '" u.e~"" f'I r.kJ
NDIZ'TU~h -rt> fllt::.E CAA.ly~... '~-K. WNtG"" Ie;.. (~b~T"CE:LY IAI~/':)r:: mE.
,
PRo,~b Aao..."nI'./_T" ~~.
C. Axe they adequate to serve the project? /Jf).
If not, please explain briefly. ~ITE- ~F'I!&./FIGo 'nRA1~ /Io\PI2bIlEM9.L~ IAI'L.L.. *'
I21::'~JI~'D .
D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 12.\~ QW_I
qr::..~k:.. JNUlaI 't:'f~D" ~ -n'> -ruE ~A~L tttvE<<. C.......JoJJJ.6rI.-
.
O~ TliE'
E. AIe they adequate to serve the project? /Jf).
If not. please explain briefly..-a,e,c, '~~IJ""'-n:;, ~PA.l:.1T)" IN fLI'; ~~V",.J ~~"
, ~/!!Grt"l-l
16 t>u~ 'A2I~..n'LV Tb ~klAoICT7H!~ !'..Am".,.."! ~~I~..MJ ~ 1'&J'''''PJ:'~ ^
SWf,ETWAT'Efl fl"/EIl. AIJt::> A.r~ CeNFLUaJrz I!IF''T'UE ~-..,.........,.. IZI_ ~b
!l.(C;~ U\toIVC>N G~~E''''' "Of~e: ~IT'Y P""1P f",..& ~ JQ56;~ /'io$<J1O<S ANO
TransDo~~on""~ (F'IGNITJoY I#I4PAC'TU) 15Y' j1+t!. ~~SE.t> ~c.,....
n.
~11'7 A
B.
What roads provide primary access to the project? &..t log, 'I?AA.~
What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
C.
qo~ A1'7r A.~IC1r'~L~Y ~" "1= WIIIU( AIlE.. ~~tC.(~"~r;, -'<C"~I2,,! 71tIps.
,
.,...."II!!:.-r~~ -ruE. ~'liil> PDAT)::'J":-r I~ I!fx~.r~~ -r"Z) PD~DOOlt!!.....' ~~~
What are the Average Daily Traffic (A.D.T.) volumes on the primary access roads before and~AI1r
after project completion?
Street Name
A.-.d,"Ia- ~
Before
1/4"'s:v"
.
After
1+LI.7W>
.
....-'"..-
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (LO.S.) .C" design ADT
volume? If yes. please specify. YE5. ~ T'Q4VEL- 'f1MI!!. 4ultllt!:"'~ "" /CRz.
.
'NDt:t:".4T1!n- ~r ~1n1 ~ IAI TJ.IIE V'G4&JIT'V LJt:-r""'UE. -DD~SEt:;) ~"'nF'~
~ ~r !...OS If])" bU~ f,.(r:. AMo.QIIE ~ TI1/r) ~lI'~ hc.J~ TJ.f.E ~t'..
P~..c> of 'Oft!. x:,.Y, Wf.l(~fo{ CbMPHes. Wf'rn 'T1(I!. C rry 5 L.oS TwtzE6fiou> S~p.
WI'C~,~CJlST()RID,JOn93 !Rd. 1021.93) (lid. 1020.93) ? .t::. Pille 2
'!t~ 7
D.
E.
F.
Ys -577
Case No.1:SJf+o't IZJ=:V(~
H the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly.
N jJ>. .
Axe the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? JJn .
H not. please explain briefly.'RI->rJmIo.. Zo.a.I' b..E:~ &1,.,-r MGOE'T' ?U.~N(~~ ~J"T'UI2t;;:)
~"nb.InI.12nI::. W,T'U tZI!'~...,- TZ> &>.....P'WA Y ~H.? -I"'fjI _ Hb""~1I2.. 41T'Y..-un~ Hct.o
.
Af-U7 ~~Ir.e ~-~ A~ GoUElJ:n-Y Mf!'r.
Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to I.
or in the vicinity of the project site? NO. ~~~1~':=-'~~ ~..~~~~~':t'
H id if L . '- e&vf.JTYC>F .~ ;>(e~o.",p,.&.<~"c~~""'F1P'"
so, ent y: ocatlon fJlA ~.-..A...",-v lAI{rH I"IYJIJ'rY c:uJu.~~h ..a::,uU-
C I. rL 0 S I. M&N~ F#(fL 'TfIe f~~rrlPM.
umu alive . . . "'.ID
,
Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An
equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips). H yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TlA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Yes )( No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
-\"
-,~e I . d? Y
0....-_"" V' Is a traffic study reqUire . es
..:c'ia.~..Y ~
~~-r") & Is there any dedication required? Y". Jl.i.DN(; ~- ,--.;; "f4 _moo 12Q6.t) Mr::> L.V>.IM>cr> ~.
~~'(i'~ .,)"'~ H so, please specify. Ba.t1~2Jo>&~ ,,,,,r. '<;>r",I':,E.DA-S.A ~.w-UW1<: ~ rzr.A....a..Y, if
'S ~ \--eD,...to~; tlrv.:t.A...ut-:~ ti.c "T1H::. ~T'Y~ "~,,'~lI&k ~. SUR:'IGo/"""'-])EOrl:ATiw ," I:I'c'1r)'.P't""i'"Z>
cef' ~J.,(~t. ~iU-r ~WI"T'H ~~ eF swr.,p ~f~"'e.J. CoMPLy W'IT1f ~T"/ 01< ~
~~~ b(C~ f2C::~)t"'u~T'!; \c::" AM"J &::i:X2.. t...V...r","""" ~I"IL.
Wl'CJ',lHOtoIE'I'LANNING\STORED'J022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Ref. Ib2D.93) 3. '7" Pile 3
@
H.
Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of
the proposed project? X Yes No
H yes, please describe. WIl>E.#J,,.,J,,, l>f: 8014111 ".~'" AI..t:JI.U; 'OlE. ~-n:::...,....
FIlIV.J.~, tJo t..EFr T'1J~S 6I-Im RnI.I f,..A 00.t..r> ~-( T1:te ~~:r
s,7'7"? AIJr:> ND J,;P'r 'T'lJi2I.jS r>>JT1:> 1:b^-T'o:v.r $fT7!! ~ ~ I'D.. t:?~.
Is the project cO!l~istent with the criteria established in the City's TranspolUtion Phasing Plan,
General Plan Traffic Element. and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any
other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed
project. Lln. '"1"1te. 'J4'^Tl:J..:r c;,'T'E. ,~ (,.,. tD~I:..~ ~a:h At" ,.......E.l:o.tfJ'Ir"V ^CQLf
'n/~O --- ~"ILIJL:nrllA..L. IJ~a kIt'fU LJ~/""'-,", Q..c.{pe&r'M~ . -'I"1I2A~tG "~~~TlDl-f
,:oR.. 11iE ~El7 'P~-r EJCI"'R::,....~ -n.tE. ~6a!-&.Jn.." ~-JII!!r:Io IJ~.
'J(
No
K.
L.
Ys-'S77
Case No.IS-'N-o<{ IZI'VI~
Is there any street widening required? Y~J ~#J.&. -rite 'DI>.....T'~.tr~ cn.......-r,..o::
IT so, please specify. ....lbEJJ BONr'71 9~ Tl) M~ I~Lr Wft:1'r'H ~1:>A1U:6...t:'
~~~~~J~~~t~~'(,~'-n+~rvbF ~
ere any 0 er street unp vements requ . ~c. .
IT so. please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements.
~ufl.B &,~ S'~IA6-~ II!: 'D12./~~ 'S~~ IJ.oC::u-nI-J~. D.a:2.lI~/.&"-- tMPll4>vE_
I . , I .
ME.u~ ",.C.PAYEM5W~ ltrc.,
,
@ Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (Please provide a brief
explanation). E.J<:r4T'1N1::. Cl:llJt>''nl>>Jc;;,.~ YEl;,. / FVTV"''' gut. "^ur-I:J,E'Jo.JEJlAL.
I .
PIAAl ~.hAIr:,~~...Jf;>I.Jl>. S6AII~ fZoA..~ W'U lIE UJt:IIJ.L.-r1!!!b R.V ~"m~
~LL:1PM~r T7:> 7'r-ff:. ~..,.... -ru~E JMPJAd:..,"", Wlu.. lJE NlI"'f7~...,..,.:o 1M
m. Soils CPN<T""'(;;.,..,~ WITH ~SE.. I>EIIELOPMEI-L'T3.
A.
B.
@)
IV.
AIe there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? IJD.
IT yes, specify these conditions. JJ fA .
.
Is a Soils Report necessary? No. /.H)WF.J/I::b PfllEf/ftJr.Jf, ~o,L.!; TZ.F~r F04 'rUE.
,
p~.,.. 61Tt= MINT"" c.J~~~ M~"" '1oI~~
Nf,.WI..y A~utUt> 'Ffi!CPef!:'rY, p>>/I(t<>1t. '{"<> ISJCJ,..,scL ..F
GL4PtoJ6 '~I""'-.
What is the average ~~Iope of the site? 5 %
What is the maximum~ slope of the site? 30%
Land Fonn
A.
B.
V.
~
AIe there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? Y1E.ti:>.
VI. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day?
Solid I{gD PDcJt<J.bI;./DAY
.
Liquid 1/z..;' CA" ~ ~~/r::>AY (t.. e; I'hlJ ~ )
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site?
J p," f'vc:, 12.(Gf! I'ANY~ TJtalk.. L.'NE..
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (IT no, please explain) Ye-:.,
Wl'CJ','HOME\fLANNINGlSTOREDII022.93 (Il.... 1021.93) (Itef. 1020.93)
~- "7
Page 4
YS-577
Case No.:D.;-tf>i-oL{ ~EVI~[;;
VII. National Pol1utant Dischaflte Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Reauirements
Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stormwater Pennit? I-J.o.
. H yes. specify which NPDES pennit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. N/... .
Will a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project?
Yes X No
Additional comments MIA .
.
@ Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adver.;e impacts. mitigation measures. or other
issues. (Y~etz. ~~~ AIJD A-1./IJE)(A.TlOLl ~S:MEArr DoI.-rEib .,nJNE. I~i I~o
Lf1r::/..J'I,~rr(b#.l Nc>. ft:;&.,p,l.f) Wtt.t. ~VETZ>SE UPaArer:(.:.r::/F .~j.u::t:> """'E'MP
/ :..
~ ~ ~J""-17> '[)()~ ~I'O ~ fJnll~IMEL :Z11~<t3').
-
~AA1 ~f~ ~Me:I-I"l'TD n+E. 'DWf!!4...L..,..JIi. IJ'Y'~ AT c.f202. /..,{IJ~J:>
. 'bIZI\IE. (.;.,.,tn'H ~AN'D IlPI-f(U ~. 'T'UE 9I2r>,TEcr So/'T'E') M,IS-r RFE. ftZDv'iOF':r>.
. ~~:~:::-r:~~:~~~:~=~~~::::=
1U:1C: 1....1'71"..d.~ J.,jS--~ '-:. Cl!>.f'''-e='..... """'^--~" ~ ThE AlEEvJl...v .A./-<i' It~
9 b,s=~ ~ <Gf.foLX ~ "fA'If!! Ellll::'c::'...., ~WJ.J. At...C:L:> ,.,...,e:.- 'P,::.\It~ ~~""'s::'~ .A~
. J
(roE. j AIZ~ ~ ~P'!.IAIr...V AC<(I)(&Q;:> 'f1I.(),.s::f--i)SHourJJ HA~ -..,...( ui'l>/c.6tnrn .
II )1t1!cr3
.
Date
."-
. eer or Representative
WPC,F,'HOMlN'LANNlNCMTOREI)\I022.93 (Ref. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93)
~.711
PageS
MEMORANDUM
November 2. 1993
File No. YS-577
TO:
Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer (AJf
FROM:
SUBJECT:
IS-94-04 Bonita Car Wash - Sewer Service Agreement Revision
This memorandum is a follow-up to our Initial Study Review dated September 10. 1993 for
the subject project in which we indicated in Section VII that the Sewer Service and Annexation
Agreement dated June 19, 1990 (approved and adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15684)
may need to be updated. Upon further review of the agreement, we have determined that an
update will. indeed, be necessary for the following reasons:
1. When the agreement was entered into in 1990, the applicant proposed to construct an
office building on three consolidated parcels. The applicant now proposes to construct
a car wash. Also, it us our understanding that the applicant is in the process of
acquiring additional property in order to satisfy specific Planning Department design
requirements with respect to site layout and building orientation. These represent
substantial changes from the applicant's original proposal in 1990, upon which the
agreement was based.
2. Because the net area (gross area minus dedication) of the current proposal will be
greater than the 1990 proposal, the Transportation Development Impact Fee and Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee, which are both based upon net area, will have to
be recalculated. In addition. these fees have increased since 1990.
3. The Traffic Signal Fee, which is based upon expected trip generation, will have to be
recalculated because the expected trip generation for the currently proposed use is
higher than the expected trip generation for the 1990 proposed use.
KP Alk:pa
cc: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
IFoIHOMElENGINEERIADVPI..AN\ys.,nOO1J
~,? 7
~
. Jew Sct:a.- ~
Cb.uW~
ROUTING FORM
DATE:
-~
I~ ~7
-v
-=
f/b,vt :
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (H.J. Diosdado)
CUrrent Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
SWeetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
~
MI1M-:
JblJ.A,haAll.... ~
Environmental Section
SUBJECT:
Application for Initial Study (IS't1:::.!!i/FA-l.3?;DQ O~SJ
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- _/FB- _/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- _/DP )
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_)
The Project consists of:
Location:
Please/reyi!iJjf the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 11,-'11/'1<.:)
Comments:
~-gl)
Case No.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A.
What is the distance to the new:est fire stati7 And what is the Fire Department's estimated
reaction time? d2. 5' ,;'( d f :; 4-"c.-;~....., /2. ~f'''^,5 I
B.
Will the Fire Depar:tment be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or persoMel? )/~j
c.
Remarks
)
/)m?U./I~
fire Marshal
11/4/CJ3
Date
I. - '8)
Page 6
Wl'CoF,\IIOMNU.NN1NGISTOREI)'U022.93 (/Ief. '021.93) (Rd. 1020.93)
ROUTING FORM
DEC~,'-.'
1993
DATE:
;;ec&7l~ /7(1'1'Z-3
D:,.
.,
! 1993
Ken Larson, Building , Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cli~~ SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (1S/3, E1R/2)
Richard Rudol~, Asst City Attorney (Dra~t Neg Dec , E1R)
Carol Gove, Fire Department .
Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (H.J, Diosdado)
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
___~CO frS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
other
-.:
~:
.~
.-,:
..51A~ Y1 ~ f1drew/ ~r'.brr4 Environmental Section
,Rc,cI
Application ~or Initial Study (1S-W-C'fIFA-fi,'2.5/DQ D35)
Checkprint Dra~t EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ )
Review o~ a Dra~t EIR (E1R- _/FB- _/DP )
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-_ERR-_)
Review o~ Draft Neg Dec (IS- /FA- /DQ- )
--
SUBJECT:
The Project consists of: t? .pIAU ~vl/i~tE4r;.~
Pae kl3h-t 01- ~.5rY~ft..lYte.. 1"'2.0 .
'11-:ze CA r u/~Sh ~ ~ DI 'I: e -:II. / j?,.. 8~ t:I ~-e.
i5.., .fy?~.:;:Z- cf'..fIcc lvl-S' .5 cA ~/'r6 51.1'1;).
Location: 3tJ+ l' /!:JeH1 {-ft7, /2. '; V ':..L' ,. .-J,. r / ufJfc.Jl'E..,
Ree'1~ /er- ,;one t<-HtnU rr . je:{~:=>1 ~".
fUvthey f.4'Ifo IS r'OJU(y~ ,
~~e~~!~~ilq2f~e document and ~orward to me any comments you have
Comments:
?~"T- 7U
20 fr.
/' . .?'.~
jI~"", /7/1 j'V....
j;:,h s 7iJ /5 'i
~, 4I~
t-J /0:) (
~//v.-
.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September 1, 1993
fa: Ken Larson, Building & Yousing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff S~anson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineer~ng (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (15/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assista"t City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
~arty Schmidt, Parks & kecreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department
Current Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. Di'. trict, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
Douq Rei d
.____Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Stud.l (15- 94-04/FA-~/DQ-035 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 day!;) (EIR- _/FB- _/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review of Environmental Revi~"\~ Record FC- _ERR-_)
The Project consists of:
Full service c~- wash with detail area, office and
lounge. The p".Jject will include prezonin9 and annexat1o:
Location:
3048 Bonita ROod (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Dri)e.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you bave
by 9/10/93
Comments:
~ ~~.
~:s
,.b Co~
~.'8.9
Case No. /.. '> - 7'of'-t) Y
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
A.
Is project subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements?
If not, please explain. ,..or Nf.\~
Po .
B. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
C. Axe existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the
population increase resulting from this project?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
D. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate
to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood
Community Parks
E. To meet City requirements, will applicant be required to;
Provide land?
Pay a fee?
F. Remarks;
~.~
q. z.4~.
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
Date
~"'8~
Pqe7
WI'C:F,~On.93 (J.fI. 1021.93)(J.fI. 1020.93)
ROUTING FOR!';
DATE: September 1, 1993
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Rousing
John Lippitt, Engineerirg (EIR only)
C1irr Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, EngineeriJlg (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudo1r, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Depart;r.ent
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
~rime Prevention, Polic~Depart.ent
~rrent Planning
Gordon Howard, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Di:ector
Chu1a Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. Di"trict, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
OOUq Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application ror Initial Study (IS-' 94-04/FA-_Q.3.5.-!DQ-035 )
Checkprint Drart EIR (20 day~1 (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review or a Drart EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review or Environmental Review Record FC-____ERR-____)
The Project consists or:
Full service C"f wash with detail area. office and
lounge. The pnject will include prezoning and annexat10t
Location:
3048 Bonita Roeu (The southwest corner of Bonita Rd
and Lynwood Drive.
Plea.e review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 9/10/93
Couents:
~...a.s
t 4t
." .
_i1uLA VISTA POLICE DEP....... '{I:.. r
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
~~
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
'~~j
,
DATE: o/Z,Z../tt3
TO: ~ ~~j lid.,;,;,',,;,
VIA: {ieti:tg,L.P-'r-' ~ttfJ .
FROM: fY/. r ws Ur-, 'S ~t9.s
PROJEC1':Is -qt..fo'f Pk w3~ &.t~sf....-~WfLJ~~J
_ The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any corruncnts regarding this project at this time.
_ Information on the project, or within the plans. does not provide enough detail to pennit
crime prevention analysis.
(/'" Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
(/""
Floor Plans
~
Landscape and Lighting Plans
~
Site Development Plans
Corruncnts: ~ jMi':7.P~.- d--1.J-r1t L - ~~~? P~..v.J
~D.M/\ 1A\ ,1,1/\ A1h11l~ ~VA4l'l ~t,~ dhP4
U 'I u--- ()
~
.),/'//'1'-/ 11 J. b~d~ f"2~ ~ ~
P' #V~ ~ ~o--nu:l- tviu. ~aft
cc: B~ver. SCA;:t:t~ f!...ffr7CQA...f) V.A . ~ ~
U~~J;~_ ~
=~,FomI ;EA-e- ~__d__" S..~
rzvt ~ C#-nY~/~-'Yl :YY
ROUTING FORM
DATE: September Sf)Q 13
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant city Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Current Planning
(j1J.L dv~~ IISI. :s.Nr Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
other
EcJ Bd-f:.Lh elder
FROM:
DOL:) (;&:01
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (Is-i4 D4/FA-&,3S/DQ -03..5)
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-_/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record FC-_ERR-_)
The Project c01,1sists of: Fdl/ S"'i"'V,ce CC? r: tJ,...Josh u,Jrtf) dccfq,(
OtCTI I ofllcC cLncl !LJUfl.(i~ The, proj-ed u.-:-cLL {/JcLwio
prE' cDn L~ CLrlc:f CU7t1e"x Q~t7-
Locatio~: 3oq-g
6<71 {-fA 1201
b-f'Yl~-:6 (4;oc1 trhf:- 5'4-L-tfJo--e&t COr/rr if
aM 6fn tV C7CtI Dr/ ue- -
Pleasi re~
by 9, 10,
the document and forward to me any comments you have
Comments:
~-. 7
!3t'7V_m C~~
PCY D /tOxJ_e/
B. Prolect Description
(para. 2)
The project consists of a change to the current City of Chula
Vista General Plan land use designation from Residential Low
(0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial Visitor. The site
is proposed to be pre zoned C-V (Commercial Visitor) .
Discretionary actions necessary to implement the proposed
project include: a General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Design
Review approval and Annexation.
C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans
The project involves a proposed change of the current City of
Chula Vista General Plan land use designation from Residential
Low (0-3 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial Visitor. The
site is also proposed to be pre zoned C-V (Commercial Visitor) ,
which would allow land uses such as the proposed car wash. The
County's Sweetwater Community Plan designates the site as
Office, Professional and Commercial, and the current County
zoning consists of C-30 Commercial.
The existing Chula Vista General Plan land use designation of
Residential Low has been applied to the project site since
1970, at a time when the entire freeway interchange and
location of Plaza Bonita Road were configured differently.
Today Plaza Bonita Road intersects with Lynwood Drive at
Bonita Road, and the appropriateness of Residential Low at the
southwest quadrant of Lynwood Drive and Bonita Road requires
close consideration.
Xeoevc d
0-4
Cf/c /93
?1/
~,9'''
BOARD OF EDUCATION
J05EPH D. CUMMINGS. PhD.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GilES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREG R. SANDOVAl
SUPERINTENDENT
lISIA S. GIl. Ph.D.
CHULA viSTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
September 8, 1993
,
~
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Section
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chufa Vista, CA 91910
Re: IS-94-04/ FA-635/ DQ-035
Project: Car Wash, Detail Area, Office & Lounge
Location: 3048 Bonita Road
Applicant: Charles Tibbett
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to advise you that the project, located at 3048 Bonita Road, is within
the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from
Kindergarten through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 3-4 percent over the
past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity
has been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms
are being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also
buses students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth
and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.27 for non-residential
area to be charged. The fee is split between the two school districts with
Chula Vista Elementary School District receiving $.121sq. ft. and Sweetwater
Union High School District receiving $.15/sq. ft. to assist in financing
facilities needed to serve growth.
The District encourages developer participation in an alternative financing
mechanism to help assure that facilities will be available to serve children
generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing Community
Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help fund this deficit.
Participation in a CFD is in lieu of developer fees.
3..S'
Mr. Doug Re,u
Page 2
September 8,1993
,
The subject project is located in the Allen School attendance area. This
school is presently operating at or near capacity, and an alternative
financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation to a CFD is
recommended.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
~~I
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
KS:dp
cc: Charles Tibbett
ITI5w:c:largecom
3. - 'cO
Case No. /.J-91/-t:J'f"
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period
3-"1
.
WI'C"',~CI\STOIIEIN022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 102D.93)
DE8--14-8: TU[
~
NRADiV 9j
c(:r.~- t'TE~
(".,'
,:)-~ I
'I
..."" I
j.. ~:. . I.'
]. ,',--:
(j. '-Iv
SWEETWATER
.-/" Community
PlannIng
Grou~
14 October 1993
TO:
Chula Vis!u Planning Department
Attn: Steve Griffin
Sweetwaler Com'TllJnity Planning GrJ..;)
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Fv..luatiofl of thE; I'rc~,I,)~IJd C.;F "'.'.;.Ish. c;':J: :il," i:,,~;;
west of Lynwood Drive
TI,l' $Wt;~twGltt,r COrTImunlty Planning GroJp hat; h.,r] "Ii' up;':("1UCi'~Y fu ~~."It.W t~,(;
preliminary proposal for a car wash facility on the :'uu',", si;:;o o! Co;: [ " :',~: ...; \, ~,::
of Lynwood Drive, The conceptual design appears to :,e w;thir~ '11t' ;'c('. (,~.jr:. 'C .)f l:,c
approved Sweetwater Community Design Handbcok Uti'dolir.;.,; :-::bPcd Cj li',f,
Planning Group and the Board of Supervi~ors,
Wtlile it is unfortunate that the City insi:;t~ that this p"',)~'~'f l~,; """"0 '.;,(J h, ',p;:,
access to sewer servic'€! (the Pianning Croup CordinuC'S ;;. 'I;-'i~':t;;)r. ~i lS ;'It:{;d)...,o
rocogn:ze the proponents lack of choice of a1ternatiJC:,-,-
The: tr<1fric situation at this location is of continuing con;.;t;r;, <lli~) th~, (j":",i.:;i \, :;"
p",jf:ct !;houlct take that into account It should b6 nQI(,d t:';it ,:Co,' 1:::.::(.; frora fli"
p:oje(,'t to l ynwood Drive (for access to Bonita Roue! wc~;t . Ir F'1e.,:<: lLlli:.J :'1c"u
rorth) will cc.use additional cycling of the signals Trll:': w,l: 'osuil i.. "d';it,..:::,i:iI
co. .jo;st:on fer the e>8st,twest flow of traffic through this comk'ex inter::.e'_'ton,
\, \ \:'
c:~\.- ~ \.->. ,6
John Hammond
Chairperson
.. - If.:}
P 0 Box .60 Bo...'t-, C..n.'". J ~"k.' '".-"
.. ...., Ii ~'. ......""'.", _ .... .....J ... t"""v
t:' ;0
.. .....
-.
-
.
/
r
~'~~~'"'"
· ("If
November 9, 1993
.--- -- ---'.
-
city of Chula Vista
Atttn: Susan Vandrew
276 Fourth Avenue
Chul~ vista, CA 91910
iJ(4
\
__?:o1J\
\
Dear Hz. vandrew:
Le~al
(E-'.::::':: __.--.-----..-
.'
Re: Bonit.a/Lynwond Car Wash Noi!:ie Impact P
We have reviewed the information you provided Tr;lat.ive to the above
project_'s noise impact potential otJ'djacent !(,~id~ntjal u>>es. W..,
-1150 monlt0n,d noise levels at a ,.,':l'parar..l" fi\"j')~:,.r",cu~tly
equipped \wit.h a new blower/dryer SY5Lf'r.t. We c~'~i1uat.(od Ddckglo.mJ
noise lev,;ls due to Bonita Road 1;raffic and ~.t"'I1 super:im{Joseu d'1/
possible on-site noise contribution upon the background. B~~au5e
of a Jack of site-specific data, we did not include any fre~way
cOl.tri bution ever' t:1ough the freeway obviously- al so affects
baseline conditions.
~I" nQL... data thE applicant provided listed a noise leVt~l of 67 c;'.
",t ')0 f",1. from the equipment. We measured 66 dl" :,1: IC' f"...t ,1.,.
th~ wa~h.tunnel axi5 and 60 dR at 100 feet p~L~~ndj~c'ar to ~
Clxis. ")ur tlleasurement a9re'~5 exact} y wit., tho:, .....~ 1"' ~.
lit~ratur~ on car wash dryers.
Rdckgrvund noise levels due to traftic: on Bonita ROad at Lh~
n~are~t Lynwood Hil] residence were calculated to be 66.' JJl
th._, car wash .1 faced t.he homes it would add 60 r a
cOr.lbl.€,j Ci.5 dR (II 0.9 ts lncrease). If the tunne H; p. re C 0
Bon i t;, J~')OIa as proposed lIt would huve a 54 dB im~. 'sl.. of a
con,:)i"..< 66.8 dB level (a 0.2 dB increase). We belie' ~.2
dB l:Il n''''''e would not be detectable given tho:. exif>tL. nd
lev.el, particularly when the freeway background is also L",ke,. "to
account. For an east-west orientation ot the tunnel, and with
r.....:<"sonll.bJ" limits on the hours of operation, we do not bel i eve that
F.~, pot,:." jal for a signjfici\nt. impact t");i:,.t_" at th'" n"arC$t hOltleE
(.)1 thi"f: '"'. add;tional study is IoIaLr<inted.
You expres!'Oe-l sora,;, concE', n abQut
j nd i cat.ed, tb~t is an OSH^ I SSllf'
'-'-T1':::'Y~I~ noi~c cxpusur~.
,.,.) f" t r€;d 1.1 i a r;~t'ter Q=
A(> I
code
I
\
I
J
3-".3
I
I
t-
'7U4J;Z,'V P~_~I ,'"';PlrJ,. \'(rllp 1.m '.'UU<' r.../it:'JmiA 277i4 .. PI!. I,' I "N.; " ~~/..\tiiN . F.r,-7l.41IS1~MJ:
140....'
03 'S3 J4:57 GIROU>:,
-)'~ IHTES
~
~.2
,.
.
-2-
compliance. I did, however, calculate the allowable noise exposure
tor a car wash employee working in close proximity to the blower
for any extended period of time with the following time limits to
meet the OSHA allowable noise dose:
Distance frODI Blower
Allowable Timu
3'
5'
6'
7'
1 Hr 45 min
5 Hr 2 min
7 Hr 8 min
No Limitation
Given that car wash employees on1y spend brief periods in close
proximity to the blower/dryel', 1 do n01, wllevE: t.hat noise
protection is an issue for this project. please call me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
/~ 1.),4-.4
Hans D. Giroux '
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
~r,,4
/~ ,4~
MEMORANDUM
January 27, 1994
File # YS-577
TO:
Susan Vandrew, Planning DepartInr7P
Harold Rosenberg, Traffic EngineeN'-
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Bonita Car Wash Traffic Report
Subsequent to the information provided in the transportation section in the initial study (case
#18-94-04), a site specific transportation analysis was completed by a traffic consulting firm,
Darnell and Associates Inc. While our conclusions are the same (no adverse traffic impacts
results from the project) the consultant's report shows a lower vehicle trip generation rate than
was noted in the City's initial study report. The consultant's trip rate value was based on an
employment and estimated daily car washes. Our trip rate value was based in a generic
relationship between land use and land area. We accept the consultant's procedure and find
his report to be complete.
DW:dv
cc: Kirk Ammerman
(F :\horne\engUtecr\traffic\carw &Sh.DW)
~~".s
~5~
'memorandum
April 25. 1994
File: YS-577
FROM: Zoubir Ouadah. Civil Engineer
TO:
VIA: Hal Rosenberg. City Traffic Engin
SUBJECT: Bonita Carwash Traffic Study
I reviewed the applicant traffic impact report regarding the proposed carwash on Bonita
Road prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc., dated April 21. 1994. and fmd it to be
satisfactory.
Please forward a copy of this report to the County of San Diego, Public Works
Department for their review and comment since the intersection of Bonita Road and
Bonita Plaza/Lynwood Drive is under their jurisdiction. Please call me at 5180 if you
have any questions.
WPC F:\bcme\eagiDce:r\lS72.94
~, ,.,
r
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORT A TION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
April 21, 1994
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Cal Carwash Services
3907 Massachusetts Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
D&A Ref. No.: 940103
Subject:
Revised Traffic Report for Proposed Bonita Car Wash
Dear Mr. Tibbett:
In accordance with your authorization, Darnell & Associates, Inc. (D&A) has prepared this letter report
addressing the five traffic items identified in the January 6, 1994 memo from Susan Vandrew. City of
Chula Vista Planning Department, regarding the subject project. The items to be addressed are:
1. Existing Level of Service (LOS) for the Bonita RoadIPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection with and
without the project.
2. Year 1998 LOS for the Bonita RoadIP]aza BonitalLynwood intersection with and without the
project.
3. Discussion of intersection safety with and without the project.
4. Proposed project driveway impact to Bonita Road and Lynwood Avenue traffic.
5. Discussion on the site plan circulation system.
In addition, this iteration includes the City's request to incorporate the traffic associated with the San
Diego Calvary Chapel in the project vicinity.
TRIP GENERATION
The first step in the analysis process involves the estimation of vehicular trips generated to/from the
proposed project site. The proposed Bonita Car Wash is planned to service 125 to 250 washes per day.
A total of seven (7) employees will be needed and there will not be any gasoline services provided. The
owner anticipates detail services will be provided and are accounted for in the 125 to 250 washes per day.
Exhibit 1 is a reduced copy of the project site plan.
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD' SUITE B' SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
PHONE: 619.233-9373 . FAX: 619.233-4034
3 -,. 7
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Cal Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 2
Pursuant to the City's request, traffic generated by the project was estimated using the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) published rates (October 1993) for a car wash. The SANDAG
rate is 900 average daily vehicles (ADT) per site. As stated above, the owner anticipates a maximum
of 250 washes per day plus employee trips. Therefore, it is our opinion that the 900 trips per day
provides a worst-case analysis.
AM and PM peak hour traffic was then estimated based on published SANDAG rates. The AM peak
rate is 4 % of daily traffic and the PM peak rate is 9 % of daily traffic, equally split between inbound and
outbound movements. The resulting project trip generation is as follows:
TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period
Daily I I
Use Intensity Traffic In Out In Out
I Car Wash i 1 i 900 i 18 '1 18\ 41 I 41 I
Project traffic was then assigned to the project driveways and the Bonita RoadfLynwood Avenue
intersection. The resulting project related peak hourly volumes are shown on Exhibit 2.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH & WITHOUT PROJECT
Existing AM/PM peak hour counts for the Bonita RoadlPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection were obtained
from the County of San Diego, collected in August 1993. Exhibit 3 presents the existing peak hour
volumes. The existing level of service was then calculated utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) procedures for Signalized Intersections. The results of this analysis show that the peak periods
will operate at LOS C in the morning and LOS D in the evening at this intersection. Table I summarizes
the results.
Project traffic was then added to existing traffic volumes. Exhibit 4 presents the existing plus project
volumes. The LOS was then calculated using the HCM methodology. The addition of project traffic to
the existing traffic results in the Bonita RoadlPlaza BonitalLynwood intersection continuing to operate
at LOS C during the AM peak and LOS D in the evening peak. The results are presented on Table 1.
~-'T'~
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Cal Carwash Services
April 21. 1994
Page 3
YEAR 1998 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH & WITHOur PROJECT
To estimate year 1998 traffic volumes, the existing 1993 volumes were increased 2% per year. Exhibit
4 presents the results of this calculation. Project traffic was then added to the 1998 base volumes and
the results are presented on Exhibit 6. Level of service was then determined for 1998 conditions with
and without the project. The AM and PM peak hour calculations result in the Bonita RoadlPlaza
BonitalLynwood intersection operating at LOS D for both peak periods for 1998 conditions with and
without the project. The results are also presented in Table I.
YEAR 1998 CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE
In addition to the 2 % compounded growth factor, D&A also analyzed traffic impacts associated with the
San Diego Calvary Chapel located south of the project. D&A obtained a copy of the Entranco-Federhart
traffic study performed for the Chapel and incorporated the trip generation and distribution into this
study. The Chapel facility consists of approximately 16.300 square feet and operates generally on Sunday
mornings and weeknights (6-9:3Opm). During the weekdays, a preschool operates from 8:00am-6:00pm.
enrolling approximately 95 students (50 of which are grades K through 6). According to the Entranco-
Federhart study, the preschool generates 766 daily trips, 31 during the AM peak, and 60 in the evening
peak. The peak hour distribution of traffic is presented on Exhibit 7.
The peak hour volumes presented on Exhibit 7 were added to the base year 1998 plus proposed project
volumes. Exhibit 8 shows the cumulative peak hour traffic for this condition. HCM analysis was
conducted on the cumulative volumes and the results are presented in Table 1. The intersection of Bonita
RoadlPlaza Bonita/Lynwood will operate at LOS D during both peak periods.
The HCM worksheets for all analyses conditions are included in Appendix A.
DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION SAFETY WITH & WITHOur PROJECT
Proposed project, existing, year 1998, and cumulative volumes were examined as well as the project site
plan to identify any safety problems associated with the project implementation. Our review of the
project identified two potential safety concerns.
The first potential problem is motorists desiring to leave the Bonita Road access drive would cross two
travel lanes. to enter the eastbound left turn lanes to either turn left onto Plaza Bonita or make a U-turn
to go west on Bonita Road. This condition could occur from any project developed on the site.
However, a careful review of project volumes desiring to make these moves is very low and would not
be expected to create a problem.
'3. . "1
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Cal Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 4
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE
BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD INTERSECTION
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period
Condition Delay (see) LOS Delay (see) LOS
Existing 24.0 C 26.6 D
Existing Plus Project 24.1 C 28.6 D
Year 1998 25.3 D 34.9 D
Year 1998 Plus Project 27.5 D 35.2 D
Year 1 998 Cumulative 27.5 D 36.6 D
LOS = Level of Service
(see) = in seconds
The second area involves the potential conflicts from motorists leaving the Lynwood access. Because of
the long signal cycle length, these motorists could block Lynwood Road southbound traffic while waiting
for the signal to change and serve Lynwood. The relatively small project volumes and the low traffic
volumes on Lynwood would indicate that this will not be a problem.
PROPOSED PROJECT DRIVEWAY IMPACTS TO BONITA ROAD & LYNWOOD AVENUE
The project traffic is not expected to create any significant impacts to Bonita Road and/or Lynwood
Avenue traffic. Traffic generated by the car wash is spread fairly evenly over the day. This reduces the
potential for significant impacts occurring. The site could be developed with a more intense use with
higher traffic generation than the proposed project.
DISCUSSION OF ON SITE PLAN CIRCULATION SYSlEM
The site plan depicted on Exhibit I and project volumes presented on Exhibit 2 were carefully examined.
The general layout of the site was found to be satisfactory. The only area of concern involves the vehicle
stacking area at the vacuum area. For traffic arriving via the Bonita Road access there is room for
approximately 14 vehicles to queue. From Lynwood. however, there is stacking area for approximately
seven (7) vehicles including the vacuum area. To determine the adequacy of the stacking from Lynwood,
the peak hour generation of 41 vehicles entering the site was examined. Based on our experience with
~ ... I .....,
Mr. Charles R. Tibbett
So-Cal Carwash Services
April 21, 1994
Page 5
car washes, the 41 vehicle demand can be accommodated without backing vehicles onto Lynwood or
blocking traffic exiting the site. The only recommended change to the plan is to widen the proposed 24
foot driveway on Lynwood to 28 feet.
I trust this revised letter report adequately addresses the City of Chula Vista comments.
Sincerely,
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~E-~
Bill E. Darnell, P.E.
BEDlbh
0103CAR1.RPT/94-4
~-Jc>J
EXHIBITS ]-8
.3-IO~
~
~
~
2
..
EXHIB IT 1
Darnell I< ASSOCIATES. INC.
SITE PLAN
~ p 10.3
I
I.LI
-'
4:
U
V1
o
Z
'.. "
o
-+-'
C
o
CD
Bon ita
o
N
o
CL
CXJ
'-.....
r0
~
Road
4/9-
r 7 /17
-, \ \ t \
tD OJ U to CXJ co
.,......- -----.... 0 .,......- -----.................
............. -<:t 0 ............. r0 -<:t
co ~ co
c
>,
--l
10/25 ~
14/32~
LEGEND
XX/YY = AM/PM Traffic
Darnell. ~m!. INC.
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC
~~
V1
o
Z
Bon ita
143/559
846/1625
18/41
Darnell & ASSOCIATES. INC.
o
........,
c
o
m
n
o
LO ('.J
~ ~
~ r--- ~
~~r---
~ ~
o
N
o
Cl-..J
1
~
--
~
,
tL
u
o
o
S:
c
~
-1
iti
OLO~
n~~
~Or---
c..o
('.J
.~
Road
1"-15/49
-1217/1150
r- 8/9
,
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING TRAFFIC
I
w
-'
d<s
(f)
-t :1-9
z
,* ...
0
-+-'
C r-")
0 0
CD I.D
0 '----I.D~
N ~z:..,----
0 ~~r---
-
Cl.. ~ . L, Road
Bon ita
143/559 ~
850/1634 --
18/41 -,
'1
L 15/49
-1217/1150
t 15/26
tr-
(()r-")N
-0 v ~ ~
o '---- '---- ---..
o v r-") ~
3: r-") ..--
c
>,
~
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 4
Darnell.. ASSOCIATIS. me.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
3.-IDt.
I
W
-J
, .<(
u
U1
-E :1-9
z
~
0
.........
c n
0 LD
OJ LD
"-.. 1O
0 LDCO..q-
N LD"-.."-..
0 CO
- .,- .,-
D- ~ I L
Bonito ,
157/615 --'
930/1788 -
20/45 --,
,
"i t I
n 1O LD
v n "-.. "-..
o "-...,- co
o OJ
3!= .~
c
>,
.-J
.
-....- --
Rood
L 17/54
-1339/1265
19/10
(
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
(a) Based on 1993 count expanded to 2% per year
Darn e 11 I< ASSOCIATES. INC.
EXHIBIT 5
YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC (a)
~ .1'0 '7
W
...J
4:
U
If)
z
o
-+-'
c
o
OJ
I"")
L[)
L[)
.............,-~
L[)N.......
L[)............. .......
,-tDCO
o
N
o
CL~.L
Bon ita
157 /615 ~
932/1793 --
20/45 -,
Darnell. ASSOCtiTES. tile.
-0
o
o
~
c
>,
-.-J
It I
coO'Jco
LD~~
.......................................
,-tD<<:j-
-<;j- .,-
I
Road
L 17 /54
-1339/1265
,20/36
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 6
YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC
~-
u.J
...J
..!{S
(/)
.o.~
-
.-
0
-I--'
C
0
m N
..--
0 ............
N N
0 ..--
- Road
0.... ~
Bonita / '-.
r- 5/5
28/26 -, ,
'\ t I /
c.ONLD
v N..-- "-
o ........................ LD
o oJ N
3!: N"--
c
>.
---1
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
Darnell " ~ INC.
EXHIBIT 7
CALVARY CHAPEL TRAFFIC
-"~~__.11!!11
I
W
..J
<{
U
(j)
o
:z
.:1; :...
0
-+-'
C 1"J
0 LD
OJ lO1"JtO
0 .............1"J~
N LD..........................
0 lOCOCXJ
- or- or-
0.... ~ . L Road
Bon ita
157/615 ~ L 17 /54
932/1793 - -1339/1265
48/71 -, t 25/41
\ ~ \
~or-1"J
v CXJ1"JN
0 .......................................
0 a>CXJa>
3: to or- 0r-
e
>-
-.J
LEGEND
xx/yy = AM/PM Traffic
EXHIBIT 8
Darnell .. jSSOcu.ns. me.
YEAR 1998 TRAFFIC PLUS CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
~-,
3. -III
APPENDIX A
HCM Worksheets
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
lAllA!!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE......... .1-20-94
TIME..........AII PEAK
COMMENT.......EXISTING CONDITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 143 8 26 7 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0
TH 846 1217 0 1 L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 18 15 7 141 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 2 2 0 14 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) <X> Y/N Nm Nb Y/N ..in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0;90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 18.0 13.0 51.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOY 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.199 0.256 27.7 D 12.4 e
TR 0.485 0.584 9.9 B
we L 0.060 0.088 39.7 D 33.7 D
TR 0.970 0.416 33.7 D
NB LTR 0.123 0.200 26.5 D 26.5 0
SB LT 0.081 0.064 35.6 0 20.7 C
R 0.173 0.320 19.8 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Oelay = 24.0 (seelveh) V/C = 0.571 LOS = C
A -II,
110 tJ't.1\-1-
_j HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUl!MARY REPORT
1111l111l11l111l1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME.........."" PEAK
CONMENT.......EXISTING CONDITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
L T 559
TH 1625
RT 41
RR 4
VOLUMES
we NB
9 30
1150 5
49 4
5 0
GEONETRY
WB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
SB :
42 : L
7 : L
503 T
50 TR
L
T
TR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PO X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PD
GREEN 18.0 13.0 51.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L o.m 0.256 36.1 0 24.6 C
TR 0.935 0.584 20.8 c
WB L 0.067 0.088 39.7 D 30.7 D
TR 0.945 0.416 30.6 0
NB LTR 0.143 0.200 .26.6 D 26.6 D
SB LT 0.498 0.064 39.0 D 25.5 0
R 0.617 0.320 24.1 C
-.---------------------------------------------------------------------
ERSECTION: Delay = 26.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.B74 LOS = D
~ -11..3
\2;oN '( f \
1985 HC": SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SU"IIARY REPORT
11........1111111111111l11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....DTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TI"E. . . .. .. .. . All PEAK
C~"ENT.......EXISTING+PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES
EB WB NB
LT 143 15 34
TH 850 1217 3
RT 18 15 11
RR 2 2 1
GE0f4ETRY
W8 NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
S8
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
S8 :
7 : L
4 : L
141 : T
14 : TR
L
T
TR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 18.0 13.0 51.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. VIC G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.199 0.256 27.7 D 12.4 B
TR 0.487 0.584 9.9 B
WB L 0.112 0.088 39.9 D 33.7 D
TR 0.970 0.416 33.7 D
NB LTR 0.176 0.200 26.B D 26.B D
SB LT 0.111 0.064 35.6 D 21.0 C
R 0.173 0.320 19.8 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION:
Delay = 24.1 (seo/veh) VIC = 0.582
LOS = C
.& ...'1,/
~o t.Ne ~ 1..
,~~j HC": SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
1!!!1111111111111111!111111111111!!!111!11111111!!11111111111111!11111!111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE......... .1-20-94
TIME.. .. .. .. .. PM PEAK
CONMENT.......EXISTING+PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
LT 559
TH 1634
RT 41
RR 4
VOLUMES
VB NB
26 46
1150 13
49 12
5 1
GEOMETRY
VB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
SB
42 L
15 L
503 T
50 : TR
L
T
TR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
VB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
Ea LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PO X PO X
VB LT X SB LT X
TN X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 16.0 14.0 51.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOV 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. VIC GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
Ea L 0.802 0.248 37.6 0 2B.2 D
TR 0.967 0.568 25.0 0
WB L 0.178 0.096 39.5 0 30.8 0
TR 0.945 0.416 30.6 0
NB LTR 0.258 .0.200 .27.3 0 27.3 0
SB LT 0.512 0.072 38.6 0 25.6 D
R 0.617 0.320 24.1 C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.RSECTlON:
Delay = 28.6 (sec/veh) VIC = 0.899
LOS = 0
~ -II..S
V>o !-He e 1-
~ON '\ ~ It 1....
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/8PH
DATE......... .1-20-94
TIME..........AH PEAK
COMMENT.......8ASE 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES
EB WB NB
LT 157 9 29
TH 930 1339 1
RT 20 17 B
RR 2 2 1
SB
B L
1 L
155 T
16 TR
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
L
T
TR
GEOMETRY
WB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
SB
LT 12.0
R 12.0
R 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
eX) ex) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PO X PO X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 14.0 13.0 55.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. Vie Gle DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.249 0.224 30.3 0 13.2 B
TR 0.533 0.584 10.3 B
WB L 0.067 0.088 39.7 D 35.4 D
TR 0.991 0.448 35.4 0
N8 LTR 0.138 0.200 26.6 0 26.6 0
SB LT 0.092 0.064 35.6 0 22.6 C
R 0.210 0.288 21.8 C
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION:
Doloy = 25.3 Csoelvoh) Vie = 0.628
LOS = 0
3 -IIi-
IIJort 'lib e I
. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
!AIIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!llllllllllllllllllllll.llllllllllllllllllllll
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELLlBPH
DATE. .. .. .. ...1-20-94
TIME.. .. .. .. .. PM PEAK
COMMENT.......BASE 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
LT 615
TH 1788
RT 45
RR 5
VOLlmES
we NB
10 33
1265 6
54 5
5 0
SB :
46 : L
8 : L
553 T
55 TR
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
L
T
TR
GEOMETRY
WB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
". 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X 58 LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 18.0 11.0 58.0 0.0 GREEN 23.5 10.5 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. vIe G/e DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 58.0 E 36.7 D
TR 0.998 0.602 29.5 D
WB L 0.097 0.068 44.2 E 34.4 D
TR 0.975 0.444 34.4 D
NB LTR 0.175 '0.184 .29.6 D 29.6 D
SB LT 0.406 0.086 38.0 D 28.5 D
R 0.697 0.312 27.5 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
nSECTION:
Delay = 34.9 (sec/ven) V/C = 0.959
LOS = D
.,3"/17
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
...1.1.1.!.....11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE......... .1-2Q-94
TIME..........AII PEAK
COHMENT.......199B PLUS PROJECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
LT 157 20 41 8 L
TH 932 1339 6 6 L
RT 20 17 14 155 T
RR 2 2 1 16 TR
GEOMETRY
W8 NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
EB
12.0 L
12.0 T
12.0 TR
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
m (%) Y/N N. Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 14.0 14.0 54.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. VIC GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.241 0.232 29.7 D 13.4 B
TR 0.542 0.576 10.7 B
WB L 0.137 0.096 39.4 D 39.5 D
TR 1.009 0.440 39.5 D
NB LTR 0.224 0.200 27.1 D 27.1 D
SB LT 0.140 0.064 35.7 D 22.6 C
R 0.205 0.296 21.3 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION:
Delay = 27.5 (see/veh) VIC = 0.647
LOS = D
3~11~
~DN q~fA 1-
'&>Nq~fP1..
1985 HCM: StGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
l!!!!!!ll!.!!!!!!l!!llllllllllllll!!llllllllllllllllllllll.A.lllllllllllll
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........PH PEAK
COHMENT.......1998 PLUS PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
LT 615
TH 1793
RT 45
RR 5
VOLUMES
WB NB
36 5B
1265 19
54 18
5 2
S8 :
46 : L
21 L
553 T
55 TR
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
L
T
TR
6EOItETRY
WB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEO. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (X) Y/N N. Nb Y/N m;n T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
>u 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PO X PO X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 18.0 11.0 58.0 0.0 GREEN 23.5 10.5 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 58.0 E 37.1 0
TR 1.(]01 0.602 30.0 0
WB L 0.349 0.068 45.B E 34.7 0
TR 0.975 0.444 34.4 0
NB LTR 0.373 0.184 31.0 0 31.0 0
SB LT 0.500 0.086 39.3 0 28.8 0
R 0.697 0.312 27.5 0
.----------------------------------------------------------------------
<RSECTION:
Deloy = 35.2 (sec/ven) VIC = 0.998
LOS = 0
3-1/1
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
11111All1!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAO/PLAZA BONITA/LYNWOOO
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
ANALYST.......OARNELL/BPH
OATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........AM PEAK
C~"ENT.......1998+CU"ULATIVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB
LT 157 25 69 B L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LT 12.0
TH 932 1339 1B 18 L 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RT 48 17 19 155 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 R 12.0
RR 5 2 2 16 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRAOE HV AOJ PKG BUSES PHF PEOS PEO. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (X) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 125.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PO X PO X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PO
GREEN 14.0 14.0 54.0 0.0 GREEN 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. OELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.241 0.232 29.7 0 13.5 B
TR 0.558 0.576 10.9 8
WB L 0.171 0.096 39.5 0 39.5 0
TR 1.009 0.440 39.5 0
NB LTR 0.384 0.200 .28.3 0 28.3 0
SB LT 0.257 0.064 36.2 0 23.6 C
R 0.205 0.296 21.3 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 27.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.681 LOS = 0
.) -I ~C)
1?ON '(~ eft.
~ oN q Ii' c..f
; HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SuMMARY REPORT
llllAl11l111111111!1!!!!11111111!!!!1111111111111111!1111111111111111!!!11
INTERSECTION..BONITA ROAD!PLAZA BONITA!LYNWOOD
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
AHALYST.......DARNELL/BPH
DATE..........1-20-94
TIME..........PM PEAK
COMMENT.......199B+CUMULATIVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
LT 615
TH 1793
RT 71
RR 7
VOLUMES
WB NB
41 54
1265 31
54 23
5 2
SB :
46 : L
33 L
553 T
55 TR
EB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
L
T
TR
GEOMETRY
WB NB
12.0 LTR 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
LT
R
R
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(X) (%) Y!N N. Nb T!N .in T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
lIB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 14.5 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 Y 23.5 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 133.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X
TH X X TH X
RT X X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD
GREEN 1B.0 11.0 5B.0 0.0 GREEN 23.0 11.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 YELLOU 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V!C G!C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.970 0.226 58.0 E 39.6 D
TR 1.016 0.602 33.5 D
WB L 0.398 0.068 46.4 E 34.7 D
TR 0.975 0.444 34.4 D
NB LTR 0.554 0.180 33.6 D 33.6 D
SB LT 0.562 0.090 "40.3 E 28.8 D
R 0.688 0.316 27.1 D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-ERSECTION:
Delay = 36.6 (sec/veh) vIe = 1.031
LOS = D
.3- I ~ I
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A-/'a.~
TI-lE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ou arc rcquired 10 file a Statemenl of Disclosure of certain owncrship or financial inlcrcsts, paymcnts, or campaign
~lRlributions, on all mailers which will require discrclionary aclion on thc parl of thc Cily Council, Planning Commission, and
all olhcr official bodics. The following information musl be disclosed:
\. Lisl the namcs of all persons having a financial inlercst in Ihe properly which is the subject of Ihe application or Ihe
conlract, e.g., owner, applicanl, contraclor, subcontractor, material supplicr.
c.ha.r-I"c.." R. L:li:!:,.i"-J;=-TT
LOI"'::::, Mo~ ct> A-
PAVL c. fvlA.c.,NOTTO
_MA~ f'\ I f:: A.
MAC.AlrrrTD
,
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the namcs of all individuals owning
more Ihan 10% of Ihe sbarcs in Ihe corporalion or owning any partnership inlerest in Ihe partnership.
~~ ~:u...1 {' ":... R, 11 ~~TT OO.Y. J1AR.ili.f L. _ MA~ (V nTT D - 2 fi%
_LoIs' k..cre..(c... ::2.."S"%
Pa.\A \ 'D 'f'v1Af~N71TTO
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non. profit organization or a IruSI, list Ihe names of any person
serving as director of tbc non-profil organi'~tion or as truslee or beneficiary or Iruslor of the Irust.
-
4. Havc you had more than S250 wOrlh of business transacted wilh any member of the City slaff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillecs, and Council wilhin the pasl Iwelve months'? Ycs_ No.x If yes, plcasc indicate pcrson(s): _
5. Please idenlify each and every pcrson, including any agcnts, employees, consultants. or independenl contractors who
you have assigned to reprcscnt you before the City in this mailer.
'}(D>'1 L "-hp ,
6. Have you and/or your officers or agenlS, in Ihe aggregale, contribuled more than S 1,000 to a Councilmember in the
CU1'rcnl or preceding ciccI ion period? Ycs_ NoX If yes, stale which Councilmember(s):
, , , (NOTE:
Attacll additioaal pap as~. ry) '. ' ,
(~~~cP
Signal ure of contractor/applicant
Date:
8> - 2'1 _t-13
C,I1AP LffS f?, TI ~T3E'Tf
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
~-I' ~3
. Pmc)fI is defillcd QS; "AllY iJldividual, fin", co.parrllmhip, jOlfu i'CPWfC, tWOCiQlimt, JOdol club, frmntwl nrgallizoJimt, corporaUOII., tstalC, &nul, receiw:r, zyndiCale,
IIW Gild (DIY olht:r COUIUY, city 1IIId coulllry, city mUllicipalll)', district, or u,her poJiucQ} mbdb-wOlI, or all} other ~p or combUul/iOlI DCWag At' " wW. "